A claim has been thrown out of High Court because the solicitor mistakenly underpaid the court fee.
Barry Roy Peterson and Andrew Charles Blake (the claimants) were the successors in title to the previous tenant of a flat at 8 Goodwood Court, Devonshire Street, London W1. Howard de Walden Estates Limited (the defendant) was the landlord of the flat.
The claim related to the tenants’ right to acquire a new lease, under the terms previously agreed with the landlord. The claimants wanted to make an application for an order to enforce an agreement for a new lease under section 48(3) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993.
Following the serving of requisite notices on 25th November 2021, the terms of a new lease were agreed and that it should be granted to Ryan Peterson. However, although that agreement was reached, a new lease was not granted.
The period for making an application under section 48 expired on 25th March 2022 which was four months after the making of the agreement. If an application is not made within the specified period, then the tenant is deemed to have been withdrawn from the agreement.
Solicitors for the claimants, Wiseman Lee, went to the Central London County Court two days prior to the deadline. Renovation works at the court meant the counter had been moved and payment could only be made for bankruptcy at the new location. There was, however, a postbox where papers lodged before 2pm would be considered as received that day.
Wiseman Lee issued a claim form giving authority to deduct a £308 fee, but this had been increased to £332 in September 2021. As it could not be processed due to the fee being underpaid by £24, the claim form was returned, resulting in the deadline being missed.
Mr Justice Eyre ruled that in Peterson & Anor v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd the failure to pay the correct fee could not be considered an error of procedure. As a result, the court did not have the power to remedy the error because it did not fall within the scope of civil procedure rules which did not cover these circumstances.
Recorder Hansen said: “The court was quite entitled to do as it did, given the failure to tender the correct fee” as it was the claim form that marked the commencement of proceedings and it was “only then that the court’s case management powers under CPR 3.10 are engaged”. Rule 3.10 gives the court general power to consider the matter an error of procedure.
The claimants’ appeal was rejected. Mr Justice Eyre said: “The error was not a failure to comply with some requirement laid down in the CPR; instead it was a failure to take a step which the lord chancellor had required to be taken before the court staff would issue a claim form.”
He went on to say that it was not for the courts to conclude that the result of government legislation to implement a four month period in which tenants could bring claims was unsatisfactory.
We would conclude that no matter should be left to the last minute and, once completed, any paperwork should be checked and re-checked before submission.