High Court Clarifies When Proceedings Are “Brought” for Limitation Purposes
Richard Lukins & Anor v Quality Part X Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 301 (KB)
In Richard Lukins & Anor v Quality Part X Ltd & Anor, the High Court has provided a reminder of a simple but unforgiving principle: a claim is only “brought” for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 when it has been validly issued in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Where electronic filing is mandatory, posting a claim form to the court will not stop the limitation clock.
The Background
The claim arose from a commercial fire in April 2018, which destroyed business and personal property. The claimants brought proceedings in negligence and nuisance against both the occupier of the unit where the fire originated and the landlord. The limitation period was six years.
Shortly before expiry, the claimants’ solicitors posted claim forms to the court. The documents were received by the court but returned because, under the applicable Practice Direction, legally represented parties were required to issue proceedings electronically via CE-File.
The electronic issue only occurred after the limitation period had expired. The defendants applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred.
The Central Question
The issue was narrow but decisive:
When is a claim “brought” for the purposes of section 11 and section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980?
Was it when the court physically received the paper claim form, or only when proceedings were validly issued through the mandatory electronic filing system?
The Court’s Decision
The High Court held:
Proceedings are “brought” only when they are validly issued in accordance with the rules of court.
Where electronic filing is mandatory, a paper issue by post does not constitute commencement of proceedings.
The claim was therefore issued out of time.
The court could not use CPR 3.10 to cure the defect, because that rule does not extend to fixing defects before the existence of proceedings.
Why CPR 3.10 Did Not Assist
The claimants argued that the court should exercise its general power to remedy errors of procedure under CPR 3.10.
The court rejected this. CPR 3.10 is designed to correct procedural errors within existing proceedings. It does not allow the court to deem proceedings to have been validly commenced when they were not.
There is a distinction between:
An irregularity within valid proceedings; and
A failure to commence proceedings at all.
The latter is not curable by discretion.
A Wider Trend
The courts have consistently emphasised that compliance with procedural rules matters. As litigation becomes increasingly digital, the form of commencement is no longer a mere formality but a substantive gateway.
In limitation cases, precision is protection.
Speak to a Solicitor today
If you require any assistance with Dispute Resolution, please contact us by sending an email to info@lyoncroft.co.uk, calling us on 020 3576 7170, or complete a contact-us form. Our offices are in Park Royal, West London, and you can find our address at the bottom of the page.
This article has been authored by Abdullah Suker, Managing Director of Lyon Croft Law.
