Issued When Sealed, Not When Despatched: Whole‑course scrutiny governs extensions of time to serve claim forms

Commentary on Bali v 1‑2 Couriers Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1413 (Court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Introduction

This Court of Appeal decision resolves two recurring and practically significant procedural questions about claim forms: (1) When is a claim form “issued” for the purposes of CPR 7.2 and 7.5? and (2) How should courts approach applications under CPR 7.6(3) to extend time for service where the claim was brought within the limitation period but there are court-office delays or claimant-side unawareness of issue?

The appellant, Ms Bali, brought a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident on 2 December 2019. Facing a looming limitation deadline, her former solicitors sent a claim form and Help with Fees application to the County Court Money Claims Centre (CMCC). The court later took the fee contribution by phone on 12 December 2023 and sealed the claim form on 13 December 2023, but (for reasons never fully established) did not post the sealed claim form until 2 April 2024. When the solicitors received it on 15 April 2024, the four-month service period calculated from 13 December 2023 had already expired on 13 April 2024.

Deputy District Judge Lenon KC refused to extend time for service and struck out the claim. Recognising the importance of the points raised, he transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal and granted permission. The Court, after hearing the appellant’s submissions, dismissed the appeal without calling on the respondents. This commentary explains the Court’s holdings, the legal framework applied, and the practical consequences for litigants and practitioners.

Summary of the Judgment

Date of issue: A claim form is issued on the date entered on the form by the court (CPR 7.2(2)). That date is the date the court seals the claim form (CPR 2.6 and Glossary definition of “seal”). The date of despatch to the claimant is irrelevant. Absent cogent evidence of impermissible backdating, the date on the seal is conclusive of the date of issue.
Relief framework: Late service of a claim form is not addressed by CPR 3.9 relief from sanctions. The correct (and exclusive) route is CPR 7.6. The Court reaffirmed recent Court of Appeal authorities to that effect (Robertson v Google LLC; Bellway Homes).
CPR 7.6(3) assessment: The “all reasonable steps” requirement is assessed against the whole background, not limited to steps taken only after issue or only after the sealed claim form is in the claimant’s possession. Even in standard (non-planning) cases, courts may examine pre‑issue conduct and claimant-side proactivity (or lack of it) when deciding whether all reasonable steps were taken to serve in time.
Outcome: Applying those principles, the Court upheld the refusal to extend time. The solicitors had not taken all reasonable steps in the round. The appeal was dismissed.
Practice direction reminder: The Court reiterated compliance requirements for authorities bundles (PD 52C para 29) and warned of potential costs consequences for non-compliance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Walton v Pickerings Solicitors [2023] EWCA Civ 602; [2023] 1 WLR 3545. Walton established that:

Proceedings are not “started” until the court issues the claim form; on issue, the court must seal the claim form (CPR 2.6(1)(a)); the seal indicates the claim form has been issued (Glossary). Until sealing, the document is not issued and proceedings haven’t started.
There is no power to backdate issue by stamping an earlier date than the date sealing actually occurs; such backdating would wrongly shorten the claimant’s service period.

Role in Bali: The appellant argued “issue” should mean despatch. The Court rejected that contention by applying the Walton logic: sealing and issue are a single juridical moment, and the rules leave no room for a despatch-based definition of issue. Bali applies Walton to hold that the sealed date is determinative, absent evidence of improper backdating.

R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355; [2022] 1 WLR 2339. Good Law established that CPR 7.6 applies by analogy to public law claims (judicial review) when the court considers extending time for service.

Role in Bali: Good Law’s analogue approach underpins Rogers and, in turn, Bali’s conclusion that the same “all reasonable steps” standard and methodology apply consistently to extensions of time for service, whether CPR 7.6 is applied directly (as here) or by analogy (as in planning/judicial review).

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Rogers [2024] EWCA Civ 1554; [2025] 1 WLR 2759. In the planning statutory review context, the Court distilled principles governing extensions of time for service, emphasising that courts must consider the whole period up to expiry and that claimant-side chasing of the court office and proactivity are part of “all reasonable steps.” Although Rogers concerned section 288 TCPA (with PD 54D tying service to the six-week period for bringing the claim), it identified common-sense steps expected of a party up against a service deadline, including robustly chasing the court and, if necessary, applying in time for an extension.

Role in Bali: The appellant said Rogers was confined to planning cases. The Court disagreed. Bali squarely states there is no principled basis to apply a different lens to “all reasonable steps” in standard service cases. Even where the four-month period only begins on issue, courts may consider the full background, including pre‑issue (and pre‑possession) conduct, when evaluating whether “all reasonable steps” were taken.

Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 and Bellway Homes Ltd v Occupiers of Samuel Garside House [2025] EWCA Civ 1347. Both reiterate that CPR 3.9 relief from sanctions does not apply to late or invalid service of a claim form; the correct mechanism is CPR 7.6(3).

Role in Bali: The appellant initially sought CPR 3.9 relief. The Court used Robertson and Bellway to confirm that only CPR 7.6 was available, and the judge properly proceeded on that footing.

Legal Reasoning

1) The date a claim form is “issued”

The CPR text is decisive:

CPR 7.2(1): Proceedings start when the court issues the claim form.
CPR 7.2(2): A claim form is issued on the date entered on the form by the court.
CPR 2.6(1)(a): The court must seal the claim form on issue; the seal “indicates that the document has been issued by the court” (Glossary).

From these provisions, the Court held that issue and sealing are inseparable. The “date entered” on the form is the sealing date. The despatch date is irrelevant. This reading ensures certainty: parties need a clear and objective start-point for the four-month service period under CPR 7.5. Using despatch would spawn avoidable fact disputes about posting, transmission, and receipt, undermining procedural clarity.

On the facts, the sealed claim form bore the date 13 December 2023. There was no cogent evidence of backdating such as in Walton (where the sealed document’s version could only have been sealed long after the stamped date). The Court found it likely that the claim number was assigned and fees confirmed on 12 December 2023 and that sealing occurred the next day. Confusing CMCC correspondence in late January 2024 reflected administrative error and record-keeping failures, not backdating. The sealed date therefore conclusively fixed the issue date.

2) Extensions of time for service under CPR 7.6(3)

Where an application to extend time for service is made after the service period has expired, CPR 7.6(3) permits an extension only if:

(a) the claimant took all reasonable steps to comply with CPR 7.5 (service within time), but was unable to do so; and
(b) in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to extend.

Bali clarifies the ambit of (a) in standard service cases. The Court expressly rejected the notion that only steps taken after the claim form was issued—or only after the sealed form reached the claimant—can be relevant. Instead:

The court may examine “the entire background,” including conduct before issue and while waiting for the sealed claim form to arrive, to decide whether all reasonable steps were taken to effect service in time.
In particular, once all preconditions to issue have been satisfied, a reasonable solicitor should anticipate that the claim may already have been issued and take proactive steps: chase the court, seek confirmation of issue, request urgent despatch or electronic provision, and, if risk persists, make a protective CPR 7.6 application before expiry.

Applied to the facts, the Court held that the solicitors did “too little” for too long. There were extensive pre‑issue delays largely attributable to the solicitors (including long gaps in addressing the Help with Fees issues). After the fee was taken and a claim number allocated on 12 December 2023, they ought to have chased promptly and persistently. They did not. Even after receiving the January 2024 court letter (evidently issued under a misapprehension), they took weeks to respond and still did not pin down whether the claim form had already been issued. They never made a protective application under CPR 7.6 before the service period expired. That fell short of “all reasonable steps.”

These conclusions align with Rogers’ emphasis on continual, documented chasing and escalation, adapted here to a standard service case. Bali therefore generalises the “whole-course scrutiny” approach to CPR 7.6(3) beyond the planning context.

Impact

For claimants and their solicitors

Know when time starts: Your four-month period under CPR 7.5 starts on the sealed date on the claim form, not when the court sends it to you.
Chase relentlessly: Once fees are paid and a claim number is allocated—or otherwise once preconditions to issue have been met—assume the claim may already be issued and keep chasing the court for sealing/despatch. Record all chasers.
Protective applications: If there is any risk you will be unable to complete service within the period, issue a timely application for an extension under CPR 7.6(2) (within the period). Waiting until after expiry engages CPR 7.6(3)’s stricter “all reasonable steps” gateway.
Do not rely on CPR 3.9: Relief from sanctions principles do not apply to late service of claim forms. Use CPR 7.6; serve anyway if possible; and seek an order validating late service if appropriate.
Avoid last‑minute issue: Issuing on the last day of limitation magnifies risk. If you must file close to limitation, plan for court delay and build in time to chase or apply protectively.
Consider alternative arrangements: Ask defendants’ solicitors to accept service electronically; seek directions if despatch appears stalled; and be ready to evidence all steps taken.

For defendants

Use CPR 7.7: If you know a claim has been issued but not served, require service or discontinuance within at least 14 days. This can crystallise the issue and prompt timely applications.
Challenge jurisdiction promptly: If service was late/invalid, acknowledge service contesting jurisdiction (CPR 11). Bali underlines that CPR 3.9 is inapplicable.
Leverage certainty: The sealed date gives an objective service deadline. Bali discourages attempts to redefine “issue” by reference to despatch.

For the courts and court users

Certainty of issue date: Reaffirmation that the seal date fixes the start of proceedings maintains system-wide clarity.
Administrative delays: Court backlogs and miscommunications do not alter the issue date; they may, however, influence the discretion under CPR 7.6 if the claimant can show “all reasonable steps.”
Authorities bundles: Compliance with PD 52C para 29 is expected. Non-compliant bundles may attract costs sanctions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Issue vs. sealing vs. despatch: “Issue” is the legal act of commencing proceedings. Under CPR 7.2(2) and 2.6, the claim form is issued when it is sealed. Despatch (posting it to you) is an administrative step that does not affect the issue date.
Service window: CPR 7.5 gives four months from the issue date to complete the specified step for the chosen method of service within the jurisdiction.
Relief vs. extension: Relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9) does not apply to late service of claim forms. The only route is a CPR 7.6 extension. If applying after expiry, you must satisfy the stricter “all reasonable steps” test in CPR 7.6(3).
“All reasonable steps” (CPR 7.6(3)(a)): A holistic inquiry. Reasonable steps can include: promptly supplying fee information; paying fees; confirming allocation of claim number; frequent and escalating chasers to the court; requesting electronic provision of sealed documents; informing the court of the precise service deadline; and making a protective application before expiry. Courts can assess your conduct before issue and before you physically received the sealed claim form.
Backdating: Impermissible stamping with a date earlier than the actual sealing date. In rare cases (e.g., Walton) strong evidence showed backdating. Without such evidence, the seal date is treated as conclusive.
Limitation vs. issue vs. “brought”: For Limitation Act purposes, under PD 7A para 6.1 a claim may be “brought” when the court receives the claim form that is later issued. But proceedings legally start only when the claim form is issued (sealed). The service clock runs from that issue date.
Planning/JR analogy: In planning statutory review, service time usually runs from the decision date, not issue, so CPR 7.6 applies by analogy. Bali confirms that the core “all reasonable steps” analysis is the same in ordinary civil claims.

Key Doctrinal Clarifications from Bali

The date on the seal is the date of issue. CPR 7.2(2) and CPR 2.6 mean sealing and issue are a single, contemporaneous act. Despatch plays no part in fixing the issue date. The sealed date is conclusive absent clear evidence of improper backdating.
Whole-course scrutiny under CPR 7.6(3). When determining whether a claimant took “all reasonable steps” to serve within time, courts may consider the entire course of events, including conduct before issue and before the claimant received the sealed claim form. This applies in standard service cases, not just in planning or judicial review claims where CPR 7.6 is applied by analogy.
Relief from sanctions is out; CPR 7.6 is in. Late service is addressed by CPR 7.6, not CPR 3.9. Applications made after expiry face the demanding statutory gateway.

Application to the Facts

The claim form was sealed on 13 December 2023; four months expired at midnight on 13 April 2024. Although the court inexplicably despatched the sealed form only on 2 April and it arrived on 15 April, the solicitors failed to demonstrate “all reasonable steps” in the preceding period. The Court highlighted:

Extensive delays largely attributable to the solicitors in the year following initial lodging (including late responses to Help with Fees queries).
Insufficient chasing after 12 December 2023 when the fee was paid and a claim number assigned—signals that issue could be imminent or already complete.
A delayed response to the court’s confused 30 January 2024 letter and no targeted inquiry as to whether the claim had already been issued.
No protective CPR 7.6 application made within the four-month period despite evident risk.

Against that background, refusal of an extension was inevitable. As Coulson LJ observed, to grant an extension here would have effectively inflated the three‑year limitation period by a further 18 months, to the unsuspecting detriment of the defendants.

Practice Guidance and Checklists

For claimants’ solicitors

Diary the service deadline from the sealed date the moment a claim number is allocated or fees are confirmed; treat sealing as imminent and plan accordingly.
Chase the court regularly and escalate: helpline, email, formal complaint route, and if necessary, application for directions or for electronic provision of sealed documents.
If risk persists, make a pre‑expiry CPR 7.6(2) application identifying the service deadline and evidencing your chasers and the court’s responses (or lack of them).
Avoid leaving issue to the last day of limitation; if unavoidable, put in place a robust chase plan and inform defendant solicitors early, seeking agreement for electronic service.
Do not use CPR 3.9; it is inapplicable to late service of claim forms.
Keep a meticulous record: fee payments, allocation of claim number, call logs, emails, and any acknowledgments from the court.

For defendants’ solicitors

On learning of issued but unserved proceedings, consider a CPR 7.7 notice compelling service or discontinuance.
Where service is late, acknowledge service contesting jurisdiction and rely on Bali, Robertson, and Bellway to resist CPR 3.9 arguments.
If approached to accept electronic service, respond promptly and clearly to avoid later disputes about validity.

Conclusion

Bali v 1‑2 Couriers Ltd restates with welcome clarity that the claim form is “issued” when it is sealed, not when sent or received. That bright‑line rule promotes certainty and aligns directly with the CPR’s text and Walton. More importantly, the Court confirms that extensions of time to serve a claim form engage a whole‑course scrutiny: courts may examine the entire background—including pre‑issue and pre‑possession conduct—to decide whether a claimant took all reasonable steps within the meaning of CPR 7.6(3)(a). Court delays do not shift the statutory start point for service; they must be managed by prompt chasing and, if necessary, timely protective applications.

The message to practitioners is stark. Litigants cannot safely sit back and blame administrative delay. Once preconditions to issue are satisfied, proactivity is mandatory. If the sealed claim form emerges too late, the court will ask: what did you reasonably do to prevent that outcome? Where the answer is “too little, too late,” Bali confirms that an extension will not be forthcoming.

Finally, the Court’s reminder on authorities bundles underscores that procedural discipline extends beyond the CPR’s timelines; it applies equally to appellate preparation. Non-compliance with PD 52C may have costs consequences.

Issued When Sealed, Not When Despatched: Whole‑course scrutiny governs extensions of time to serve claim forms — Commentary on Bali v 1‑2 Couriers Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1413