Jin Gumbrell v YPG Pembroke Studios Ltd: Court of Appeal overturns claim strike-out for litigant in person

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Mrs Jin Gumbrell, a litigant in person, finding that she had sufficiently complied with a County Court unless order. The case raises important questions about the precision required in unless orders, particularly when directed at unrepresented parties.

Mrs Gumbrell commenced proceedings in January 2022 against YPG Pembroke Studios Ltd using the Online Money Claim Form, seeking £12,385.80 for nine outstanding quarterly rental payments under a sale and purchase contract for a flat at Pembroke Studios in Liverpool. YPG defended the claim, contending that Mrs Gumbrell's agreement was with Perennial Management Ltd, making YPG the wrong defendant.

On 13 May 2022, District Judge Harrison made an unless order requiring Mrs Gumbrell to "file and serve particulars of claim complying with CPR 16" by 10 June 2022, specifically attaching a copy of the contract and identifying the sums due. The order provided that in default, the claim would be struck out.

Mrs Gumbrell sent documents to the court on 8 June 2022, including the sale and purchase contract and a one-page sheet cross-referencing her claim to the contractual clauses with a table of outstanding payments and interest calculations. She sent identical documents to YPG by first-class post. However, she did not produce a fresh free-standing document repeating the particulars from the online claim form, believing the order required her to supplement existing particulars with the specified matters.

On 13 June 2022, District Judge Harrison gave directions for trial, including fast track allocation. The case progressed with disclosure, witness statements, and settlement negotiations. In March 2023, YPG's solicitors made a Part 36 offer of £99,615.60, which Mrs Gumbrell accepted. When the sum remained unpaid, Deputy District Judge Alderwick entered judgement on 19 April 2023.

YPG then applied to set aside the judgement, arguing for the first time that Mrs Gumbrell had failed to comply with the unless order, automatically striking out her claim on 10 June 2022. Deputy District Judge Davies accepted this argument on 30 October 2023, holding that the documents did not constitute proper particulars of claim. HHJ Murch dismissed Mrs Gumbrell's appeal on 5 August 2024, finding she had not provided the required "freestanding document."

Lord Justice Nugee, giving the leading judgement with which Lady Justice Yip and Lord Justice Baker agreed, allowed the appeal on several grounds.

The unless order was not worded with sufficient precision to leave Mrs Gumbrell "in no doubt whatsoever" as to what was required. Citing Abalian v Innous [1936] 2 All ER 834, Lord Justice Nugee emphasised that unless orders must specify requirements "in the clearest and most precise language," particularly for litigants in person. Mrs Gumbrell's interpretation—that she should supplement existing particulars rather than produce an entirely fresh document—was entirely understandable.

The one-page sheet, read with the claim form particulars, provided "a concise statement of the facts" as required by CPR r 16.4(1)(a). District Judge Harrison herself must have been satisfied with compliance when giving trial directions on 13 June 2022. YPG did not apply to set aside or vary that order within seven days as permitted, instead continuing trial preparation and settlement negotiations. Only almost a year later did YPG contend the claim had been struck out.

Lord Justice Nugee expressed doubt whether raising this point so late would have been permissible, noting it seemed "profoundly unsatisfactory" that proceedings could continue for months before a party contended the claim had ceased to exist.

The Court of Appeal set aside Deputy District Judge Davies's order declaring the claim struck out. The question of reinstating the judgement or remitting the case was left for further submissions.

Copyright & permissions