Howard Beckett v Sharon Graham & Unite the Union [2025] EWHC 993 (KB)
Pre-Service Claim Form Amendments & Electronic Filing under CPR 17.1 & PD 51O
Facts of the Case
Howard Beckett, a former senior official of Unite the Union, brought a High Court claim against Sharon Graham (Unite’s General Secretary) and the union itself, alleging misuse of his private information. He contended that the defendants leaked his confidential information to a journalist without authorisation. The claim was filed in June 2024 at the Liverpool District Registry via the court’s electronic filing system. Initially, Beckett’s claim form indicated a cause of action in libel, but prior to serving the claim on the defendants the Claim form was amended to pursue misuse of private information instead of libel. This amendment was made by manuscript alteration on the issued claim form, which had already been sealed by the court upon issue on 5th June 2024. The claim form, as originally issued, was valid for service within four months, by 5th October 2024.
A procedural dispute arose over the correctness of serving an amended claim form in these circumstances. The claimant served the defendants with the amended claim form, bearing the original court seal and the manuscript changes before the four-month deadline. The defendants, however, challenged the validity of service on the basis that the claim form had been amended without court permission and was served without being formally re-issued, resealed, by the court. They argued that this procedural flaw meant the claim was not properly served within time and should be struck out. The claimant, in response, maintained that his method of amendment and service was compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules given the claim form had not yet been served at the time of amendment. These opposing positions led to cross applications: the claimant sought to confirm proper service, or alternatively an extension of time, while the defendants sought to have the claim dismissed.
Claimant’s Argument
Counsel for the claimant argued that no court permission was needed to amend the claim form before it was served, relying on CPR 17.1(1) which permits a party to amend its statement of case once before service without the court’s approval. The amendment amending the claim from libel to misuse of private information was made while the claim form remained under the original court seal and issue date, even after the manuscript changes. He contended there is no rule in the CPR that explicitly requires an amended claim form, amended pre-service without permission, to be formally re-filed and re-sealed by the court before service. In fact, the electronic filing regime (Practice Direction 51O) was said to accommodate such practice: the claimant did upload the amended claim form to the court’s electronic system shortly after service on 4 October 2024 to ensure the court record was updated, and a certificate of service was filed within 21 days as required.
The claimant argued that requiring a fresh court seal for a pre-service amendment would be anachronistic, especially under electronic filing procedures. It was noted that CPR 7.2 and CPR 7.5 fix the timeframe for service from the original date of issue, sealing, of the claim form. Re-sealing the form with a new date could improperly extend the service deadline or alter the proceedings’ start date, contrary to the rules. The claimant counsel distinguished the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc [2022] EWCA Civ 14, which the defendants relied upon. In Ideal Shopping, the claimants had served an unsealed amended claim form, one that had not been issued by the court, and the Court of Appeal held such service to be invalid. The claimant’s case, by contrast, involved an amended claim form that did bear an official court seal from the original issue, and thus was an issued document. They also referred to Cant v Hertz Corporation [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch), where the court observed that no Civil Procedure Rule expressly mandates serving a re-sealed amended claim form; serving a claim form with minor manuscript amendments could suffice so long as it was originally duly issued. The claimant’s position was that his actions complied with the letter and spirit of the CPR and electronic practice directions, the proceedings had commenced properly when the claim form was first issued and sealed, and the subsequent amendment before service was valid without any need for a judicial re-sealing process.
Defendants’ Argument
The defendants contended that the claimant’s approach to amending and serving the claim form was procedurally improper. Counsel argued that when a claim form is amended before service, especially to change the nature of the claim or add new allegations, the correct practice is to file the amended claim form at court and obtain a new seal, or re-issue, before serving it on the defendants. This, they said, ensures that the document served on the defendants accurately reflects the claim on the court’s record and that any required additional court fees, for example, if the amendment changes the claim’s value or nature, are accounted for. Serving an amended claim form that was never formally filed or sealed, in the defence view, risked misleading the defendants and the court as to the true nature of the claim and undermined the integrity of the court’s process. They expressed concern that allowing unfiled, unsealed alterations could result in inconsistent or even incoherent documents being in circulation—for instance, if a claimant altered a claim form to add new defendants or claims without leave, the document served might not match anything in the court’s official file.
The defence acknowledged that CPR 17.1 permits amendments before service without permission, but that rule does not explicitly dispense with the need to have the amended claim form verified by the court. They relied on case law to fill that gap, notably, Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard [2022] EWCA Civ 14 was cited as authority that serving a claim form that has not been sealed by the court is ineffective service. In that case, and related proceedings against other card companies, the claimants’ failure to serve a properly sealed claim form led the court to declare the service invalid. The defendants argued that Ideal Shopping demonstrates the importance of serving only documents carrying the court’s seal, and by extension, if a claim form is materially amended, the amended version must also be sealed. They also referenced Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC), a case under the old paper based system, where it was held that a photocopy or unsealed version of a claim form is not valid for service. In their view, Practice Direction 51O (the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme) was not intended to abolish these requirements; the electronic system still issues a sealed claim form, and any amendment should be processed through the system so that a new sealed document is generated before service. The defence warned that disregarding this requirement would create procedural uncertainty, and they sought an order declaring the claimant’s service invalid and the claim out of time.
Judge’s Reasoning and Decision
Senior Master Cook reviewed the relevant rules: CPR 7.2, which provides that proceedings start when the court issues a claim form and the court seal is the mark of issue; CPR 17.1, amendment of statements of case without permission before service; CPR 7.5, the requirement to serve a claim form within its period of validity; and the provisions of Practice Direction 51O governing electronic filing in the High Court. He also noted CPR 2.6, which deals with the court’s sealing of documents, and the obligations regarding service and filing of documents like certificates of service (CPR 6.17). The judge acknowledged that under traditional paper based practice, the orthodox approach was indeed to have the court re-seal an amended claim form before service, and cases like Hills v Struth reflected that older practice. However, Senior Master Cook stated that the advent of electronic issuing and filing has changed the practicalities of these steps.
The court found no express requirement in the CPR that a claimant who amends a claim form (before service and under CPR 17.1) must obtain a new seal on the amended form prior to serving it. The claim form in question had already been officially issued and sealed; the judge considered that a manuscript amendment to that sealed copy, completed before service, does not create a new, unissued document—it remains part of the originally issued claim form. Senior Master Cook distinguished the Ideal Shopping case on this basis. In Ideal Shopping, the claimants had attempted to serve a version of the claim form that had never been sealed by the court at all; by contrast, the claimant served a document that did bear the court’s seal, the original seal from 5th June 2024, the only difference being that some wording on the form was amended in handwriting. The judge held that this distinction was material, serving a sealed claim form with minor amendments is not the same as serving an entirely unsealed form, so the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ideal Shopping did not govern the present facts. Furthermore, the judge considered his view aligned with the observation in Cant v Hertz Corporation [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch) that the rules do not explicitly compel re-sealing an amended claim form before service.
The court considered the purpose of Practice Direction 51O and how electronic filing works in practice. Under PD 51O, when a claim form is issued electronically, the court records it and provides a digital seal. The judge said any document served must eventually be filed on the system, if it wasn’t filed earlier—for example, CPR 6.17(2) and PD 51O require the claimant to file a Certificate of Service, and, if not already filed, a copy of the served documents, within 21 days of service. In the claimant’s case, that obligation was met, the amended claim form and certificate were filed after service, bringing the court file up to date. This post-service filing requirement acts as a safety net to ensure the court’s records reflect what was served, without mandating that the filing must precede service.
Senior Master Cook acknowledged the defendants’ concerns—for example, that a defendant could be confused or prejudiced by differences between the court file and the served document—but he considered that the existing rules and mechanisms are sufficient to address any such issues. For instance, if a claimant attempted an impermissible amendment, such as adding a new defendant or claim out of time without permission, the defendant could apply to set aside that amendment or the court could refuse to allow it. In effect, the court retains control and can sanction improper conduct, but a technical step of re-sealing is not itself required by any rule.
Decision: The court rejected the defendants’ technical challenge and held that the claimant’s claim form was validly served. In a clear ruling, Senior Master Cook stated: “I have concluded that there is no requirement in the CPR which requires a claimant using electronic working who has amended a claim form without permission under CPR 17.1 by endorsing the issued and sealed version… to serve a re-sealed version of the claim form.” Neither the rules nor the relevant case law, pre- or post-electronic filing, impose such an obligation. Accordingly, the service of the amended claim form on the defendants in this case was deemed valid and within the time limit prescribed by CPR 7.5(1). The defendants’ attempt to strike out the claim was refused, and the case was allowed to proceed on its merits. The judgment thus clarifies that under the current electronic filing pilot scheme (PD 51O), a claimant may take advantage of CPR 17.1 to amend a claim form before service without needing to have the court re-seal it, provided the original issued claim form—with the court’s seal and correct issue date—is the one amended and ultimately served.
In closing, Senior Master Cook thought that the Civil Procedure Rules could be made clearer on this point. He suggested that the Rules Committee may wish to update the rules or practice directions to explicitly address the procedure for amended claim forms in the era of electronic filing. Nonetheless, his decision provides immediate guidance: it underlines that the integrity of the court seal and the service deadline are the critical factors, and as long as those are respected, the claim form was duly issued/sealed and served within CPR 7.5’s timeframe, minor pre-service amendments do not invalidate service.