.webp)
Corfield v Howard [2024]: A Timely Reminder on Filing Deadlines
The case of Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm) is a timely reminder to check the timeline for filing documents at court and to properly understand the concept of “clear days” under CPR 2.8.
What Was the Issue?
HH Judge Davis-White KC was hearing an application that related to the validity of a Consent Order. The Court had made an Order, by consent dated 26 June 2024, which required skeleton arguments to be filed by 10am one clear day before the hearing.
The hearing was listed for Monday 30 September 2024. This meant that skeleton arguments were due to be filed and served by 10am on Thursday 26 September 2024, with Friday being the one clear day.
Breach of Filing Deadlines
Neither party filed and served a skeleton argument by the due date. Court staff incurred time identifying the breach and writing chasing letters to the parties’ representatives.
- Mr Kitson, for the Claimant, filed his skeleton argument by email at 21:39 on 26 September 2024.
- The following day, Mr O’Sullivan, for the Defendant, sent an email at 15:41 apologising that their skeleton argument was not ready, citing the timing of his instructions. Their skeleton was sent by email on Sunday night, 29 September at 23:33.
The Court’s Response
At the hearing, Mr O’Sullivan explained he was engaged in another case at the time he received instructions. The parties were reminded that instructing solicitors should liaise in good time to ensure that the required skeleton arguments can be prepared by Counsel by the required time.
HH Judge Davis-White KC reiterated that the skeleton arguments were ordered by the court to be produced by a certain time:
“This was not simply guidance or a request.”
Risk of Sanctions for Late Service
Late service of documents generally results in the Court imposing sanctions. The Judge noted:
“One possibility in like cases is that the Court will have to adjourn a hearing at the cost of the party in default, though happily such an extreme measure was not necessary in this case.”
Although the parties were not penalised in this instance, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of compliance with court orders to ensure the efficient running of the courts.
Interpreting “Clear Days” Under CPR 2.8
This case is a good reminder to revisit how to correctly calculate court deadlines using CPR Part 2.8, which governs time periods in litigation.
Under CPR 2.8:
- A period of time expressed as a number of days must be computed as clear days.
- “Clear days” means that in computing the number of days:
- The day on which the period begins is not included, and
- The day on which the period ends or the event occurs (such as a hearing) is not included.
Additionally:
- Where the period is 5 days or fewer, weekends, Bank Holidays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday are excluded.
Example: Calculating Clear Days for Court Deadlines
When calculating service dates, it is essential to factor in clear days to ensure compliance with court filing deadlines.
For example:
If the Court orders a costs budget to be filed 21 days before a Costs Case Management Hearing listed for 29 November, the budget should be filed by 6 November, allowing 21 clear days before the hearing.
Need Help Understanding CPR Deadlines?
If you have any queries relating to the above or regarding this summary, please don’t hesitate to contact Emma Robson here or a member of the Peak Costs Litigation Team
