Ingram v Trethowans: High Court upholds strike out of negligence claim against law firm

The High Court has dismissed a litigant in person's appeal against the striking out of his professional negligence claim against Trethowans LLP. It held that a request for 18 months to obtain supportive medical evidence was unrealistic, even though the Master's reasons had been partly mistaken.

In Ingram v Trethowans LLP [2026] EWHC 2893 (KB), Mrs Justice Heather Williams granted permission to appeal but upheld the strike out. She also found that the claim form had never been served, which provided a further reason for dismissing the appeal.

Background

Mr Ingram instructed the firm in 2017 on a proposed clinical negligence claim concerning ophthalmic treatment. He alleged that the firm let the limitation period expire in December 2017. An expert report obtained in 2018 did not support the claim, and the firm closed its file.

After a series of standstill agreements running until September 2025, Mr Ingram issued proceedings himself. In November 2025 Master Eastman made an unless order requiring Part 16 compliant particulars of claim by 5 January 2026. Mr Ingram applied for an 18-month extension to obtain a new medical report, but the application could not be issued until a fee remission point was resolved. On 31 December 2025 the Master refused the extension and struck out the claim. He reasoned that the application was out of time, that the claimant had failed to comply by 27 November 2025, and that the extension was unrealistic given the lengthy history.

The Master's errors

The firm accepted that the first two reasons were wrong. The deadline was 5 January 2026, not 27 November 2025, and the application had been made in time. Permission was granted on that basis.

Applying Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the court also extended time for the firm's Respondent's Notice, filed some two months late. The breach was serious, but the firm, never served with the claim form, had first to notify insurers and instruct solicitors, and the claimant suffered no prejudice.

Why the extension was unrealistic

Re-exercising the discretion without the flawed reasons, the judge agreed that an 18-month extension was unrealistic. Mr Ingram had had most of the limitation period, an 18-month standstill and almost 14 months since issue in which to obtain evidence.

He said his treating consultant had offered in December 2024 to prepare a report free of charge within four months, but he had not instructed him. The only supporting document stated that the consultant would report "if instructed by your solicitors", while the solicitors would act only once a supportive report existed. The judge found the claimant's plan "neither credible nor convincing" and concluded he was seeking time "in the hope that something will turn up". Even with a credible plan, nothing like 18 months would have been allowed.

The unserved claim form

Although not decisive, the judge found that the claim form had not been served. No certificate of service was filed, there was no proof of postage, and the claimant's account was vague. His own email to his solicitors described the paperwork as "issued not served".

The court found no authority on whether striking out a claim stops the four-month period under CPR 7.5 from running. It would be a "most surprising outcome" if reinstatement gave the claimant ten more days to serve, months after the deadline. Any application under CPR 7.6(3) would fail. Had the appeal succeeded, the firm would therefore have had an unanswerable basis for setting aside the claim form.

Mr Ingram appeared in person. Liana Turner, instructed by Simmons & Simmons LLP, appeared for Trethowans.