Clyde & Co defend claim with application to strike out due to procedural failings by the Claimant

Clyde and Co were instructed to represent a GP Practice in a clinical negligence claim brought by a Litigant in Person. The claim brought against the GP Practice concerned alleged failings to diagnose and treat a range of various illnesses including IBS, liver issues and fibromyalgia.

However, the claim was poorly pleaded. It was evident that the Claimant had not obtained supportive expert evidence of his claim and he had failed to serve the Claim Form in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules. 

Application 

Clyde and Co applied to contest jurisdiction, pursuant to CPR 11.1)6) and requested an Order for strike out, pursuant to CPR 3.4)2) b) and c) on the basis that: 

• The Claim Form did not contain the correct address for the Defendant pursuant to CPR 6.8-6.9.
• The Claimant failed to serve a ‘Response Pack’ alongside service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, thereby breaching CPR 7.8.
• The Claim Form failed to state whether the amount the Claimant expected to recover in damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity was more or less than £1,500, which was a breach of CPR 16.3)3). 

In the alternative Clyde and Co applied for strike out of the claim, pursuant to CPR 3.4)2)a) and c) on the basis that the statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and there had been failure to comply with a rule and practice direction. 

• This application was made largely on the basis that the Claimant had failed to fully particularise their claim, without specific allegations and expert evidence. 
• Clyde and Co specifically cited Pantelli Associates Ltd -v- Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) in which it was held that where an allegation of negligence is pleaded, that allegation must be supported (in writing) by a relevant professional with the necessary expertise.

Outcome 

Prior to the hearing, in the days beforehand, the Claimant had applied for an adjournment of the application hearing as he had not arranged for an advocate to attend on his behalf. The Judge refused this application and held that the key issue was that the Claimant had no expert medical evidence to support his allegations, and therefore adjournment would not rectify this issue. 

Following submissions, the Judge held that the claim should be struck out, pursuant to CPR 3.4)2) b and c) on the basis that the Claim Form was not valid and this was a clear breach of the CPR. The Judge ordered that the Claimant pay the Defendant’s costs.

Summary

The outcome of this case demonstrates that claims brought by Litigant’s in Person are not an exception to the CPR and highlights the value of making appropriate applications at the earliest opportunity to challenge procedurally defective claims, before costs increase.