Background

The background of Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey centres on a procedural dispute regarding whether a claim was initiated within the legally required timeframe (the limitation period) if a claimant pays the wrong fee.

The Issues

• Limitation & Fee Errors: Determining if the limitation clock stops on the date the court office receives the claim form, regardless of whether the initial fee paid was insufficient.
• Backdating Application: Whether it was appropriate to grant a "backdating application" to deem the claim was brought within time, despite the fee discrepancy.
• Amendment of Particulars: Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend their particulars of claim after the filing date.
• Withdrawal of Claims: The validity of the claimant’s application to withdraw specific parts of their original case.
• Costs Orders: The appropriateness of the costs order made against the first defendant (a litigant in person) following these procedural rulings. 

Held

The Court of Appeal, with Lady Justice Andrews delivering the leading judgment, held that: 

• Limitation Period: A failure to pay the correct court issue fee does not prevent an action from being "brought" under the Limitation Act 1980.
• Court Receipt is Decisive: The critical date for stopping the limitation clock is when the claim form is delivered to and received by the court office, not when it is formally issued or when the correct fee is eventually processed. 

The Court of Appeal upheld the original May 2025 decision by Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre, which: 

• Backdating: Granted a "backdating application" deeming the claim brought on 27 March 2025.
• Amendments: Permitted the claimant to amend their Particulars of Claim.
• Withdrawal: Approved the claimant's application to withdraw certain parts of the case.
• Costs: Confirmed the costs order made against the first defendant (a litigant in person).

Comment

This decision provides certainty for practitioners and litigants, ensuring that administrative errors regarding fees do not automatically cause a claim to fall outside the statutory limitation period. 

See a copy of the Judgment here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2026/215.html

< Back to case list