A claim is ‘brought’ on the date the claim form is delivered to the court, even if the wrong court fee is paid.
Summary
The Court of Appeal considered whether a failure to pay the correct fee for a claim means that an action has not been 'brought' for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980.
Solicitors for Mr Siniakovich issued defamation and malicious falsehood proceedings the day before the one year limitation period expired but paid the incorrect court fee. After paying the correct fee 10 days later, they asked the court to confirm that the claim had been brought in time.
The Court of Appeal decided that a claim received by the court is 'brought' for the purposes of the Limitation Act, regardless of whether the correct fee has been paid.
Background
This case related to a claim for libel, slander, or malicious falsehood. Section 4A of the Limitation Act confirms that the limitation period for bringing such a claim is one year. In this case, the limitation period expired on 28 March 2025.
Siniakovich claimed £370,000 plus costs and non-monetary relief (including an injunction and a compliance order). On 27 March 2025, Siniakovich’s solicitor filed the claim form and particulars of claim and paid a court fee of £10,000 based on the money claim only.
On 7 April 2025, the court rejected the application as the appropriate court fee had not been paid. The particulars of claim included a claim for an injunction which attracted an additional fee of £626. The court requested that the claim was resubmitted with the correct fees.
The solicitor paid the additional fee and resubmitted the claim on the same day. The solicitor also filed an application for relief from sanctions under the Civil Procedure Rules - CPR 3.10 and CPR 3.1(2) requesting that the court treat the claim having been issued on the original submission date of 27 March 2025.
At a hearing on 21 May 2025, the High Court held that the claim was brought on 27 March 2025. This meant that the defendants could not raise a limitations defence.
The defendants appealed.
The court's decision
The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals. The High Court had no power to backdate issue or to use CPR 3.10 or 3.1(2)(p) to remedy non-payment of a court fee. Relief from sanctions was not appropriate.
The court held that failure to pay the correct court fee does not prevent an 'action' being 'brought' when the claim form is received by the court for limitation purposes. It rejected the position in Page v Hewetts Solicitors [2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch), in which the court held that payment of the correct application fee is an administrative requirement linked to issuing a claim.
An action is brought when the claim form is delivered to the court office, whether or not the correct fee was then paid, and irrespective of whether the shortfall led to rejection and later re-filing. Limitation focuses on the claimant’s act of bringing the claim to the court, not on administrative fee-compliance or subsequent issue timing.
The court determined that Siniakovich brought the actions for defamation and malicious falsehood on 27 March 2025, within the one-year limitation period.
Comments
This case confirms that, for limitation purposes, the key date is the date when the action is 'brought' which often pre-dates the date of issue, regardless of whether the correct fee has been paid.
Inadvertent mistakes do not prevent an action from being considered 'brought'. In contrast, deliberate underpayments can amount to an abuse of process and attract court sanctions, including striking out a claim.
If there is any indication that there have been deliberate underpayments of the fee in order to extend the limitation period, clients can raise this as part of any defence.