Group action denied relief from sanctions

Key facts

The PCD GLO provided at paragraph 46 (which had been subject to amendment) that: “In order to be entitled to enter on to the Group Register, a Claimant whose claim falls within the scope of this GLO must have (i) issued a Claim Form by 4 p.m. on 15 December 2024; and (ii) served a Claim Form in one of the following ways: (a) Claim Forms sealed prior to 8 December 2024 must be served by 4 p.m. on 15 December 2024; and b) Where the sealed Claim Form issued in compliance with (i) is received from the Court on or after 8 December 2024, it must be served within 7 days of the Claimant receiving the sealed Claim Form from the Court.”

The BL claimants submitted their claim form on 11 December 2024 by using the CE filing platform. On 16 December 2024 the claimant’s solicitor received email confirmation from the court that the claim form had been accepted. However, the claimant’s solicitor did not access the CE filing platform until 12 January 2025, at which time the sealed claim form was downloaded and served.

The defendant alleged that service of the claim form was out of time. The claimant’s solicitor wrote on three separate occasions to the defendant’s solicitor, the last time on 17 December 2025, threatening to issue an application for relief from sanctions. The application was eventually issued on 20 January 2026, over one year after the service of the claim form.

Application

The claimant argued that service was in time because the sealed claim form was only “received” when downloaded from CE File on that date. Alternatively, they sought relief from sanctions under Denton v TH White. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that the claim form had been served after the cut off date provided for in the PCD GLO and relief from sanctions should not be granted.

Judgment

The court held:

Service of the claim form

That service was out of time. The claim form was “received” when the court notified the parties via CE File on 16 December 2024 that it had been accepted and was available. The seven-day service window therefore expired on 24 December 2024 and service on 12 January 2025 was late. 

The court rejected the argument that “receipt” occurs only upon download. It emphasised that under CPR PD 5C and the King’s Bench Guide, the court notifies users when a document is available, and parties must then retrieve it. Allowing time to run only from download would enable parties to extend deadlines unilaterally, undermining procedural certainty.

Relief from sanctions refused

Applying Denton, the court found:

1. Serious and significant breach
   A failure to meet a GLO cut-off date is inherently serious. A 19-day delay was significant, particularly in the context of a structured GLO timetable. The claimant had accepted that the breach was serious and significant. The court accepted the defendant’s submission that the breach occurred due to misunderstanding on the part of the claimant’s solicitor of the meaning of the court’s communications.
   
2. No good reason
   The court found that the claimant had not provided a good reason for the breach. Simply misunderstanding CE File and internal email issues did not justify non-compliance. The explanations offering amounted to, at best, an administrative error which was insufficient under Denton.
   
3. All the circumstances
   There had been a substantial delay in applying for relief from sanctions (over a year after the issue arose). To grant relief from sanctions would prejudice the defendants as the liability trial had already concluded and preparation for the quantum trial listed for October 2026 had begun. There was also a potential “floodgates” effect if late entrants were permitted to join the group action.
   

As a result, the court dismissed the claimants’ application.

Conclusion

The decision reinforces that courts will rigorously enforce GLO deadlines, particularly where the register has effectively closed and proceedings are advanced. This provides greater certainty on exposure for defendants in mass claims.

The court have also shown that there is limited tolerance for administrative failings. The court’s approach confirms that failures linked to firm processes, IT issues, or misunderstanding of systems will rarely constitute a good reason and parties are expected to understand and actively manage CE File obligations.

Defendants can take confidence that late attempts to expand a claimant cohort will face significant hurdles, particularly post-liability trial and arguments based on lack of prejudice are unlikely to succeed where case management integrity is engaged.

Finally, delay in seeking relief is critical. The court placed considerable weight on the late application. Prompt action remains essential where procedural breaches arise.