Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey: unpaid court fees and the limitation period

The Court of Appeal has resolved a question of considerable practical significance: does the failure to pay the correct issue fee when a claim form is received by the court office mean that an action is not "brought" for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980? In Valery Siniakovich v Nivin Hassan Hassan-Soudey & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 215, Lady Justice Andrews, delivering the leading judgement with which Warby and Zacaroli LJJ agreed, answered that question in the negative.

The claimant brought proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood. His solicitor filed the claim form and Particulars of Claim via CE-File on 27 March 2025 — the day before the limitation period for the defamation claim expired under s.4A of the Limitation Act 1980. A fee of £10,000 was paid, calculated solely by reference to the money claim on the face of the claim form. The Particulars of Claim, however, also sought a final injunction and a compliance order under the Data Protection Act 2018, both non-monetary remedies attracting an additional fee of £626.

The court office rejected the filing on 7 April 2025. By then, the limitation period had expired. The shortfall was immediately paid and the documents resubmitted, with the claim form issued on 8 April. The claimant then sought an order treating the claim as having been issued on 27 March — the "Backdating Application" — which the High Court granted. The defendants appealed.

The limitation question

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's order as made without jurisdiction: the court has no power to backdate the date of issue, and CPR r.3.10 cannot remedy a failure to pay the correct fee, which precedes the commencement of proceedings entirely. That much followed from Peterson v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2023] 1 WLR 3057 and the Court of Appeal's own decision in Bali v 1-2 Couriers Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1413.

The substantive question, however, was whether the action had been "brought" on 27 March regardless. Andrews LJ reviewed the line of authorities running from Barnes v St Helens MBC [2007] 1 WLR 879 through Page v Hewitts Solicitors [2012] CP Rep 40, Hayes v Butters [2021] 1 WLR 2886 and Chelfat v Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd [2022] 1 WLR 2613. The conclusion reached was unambiguous: an action is brought when the claim form is first delivered to the court office, whether or not the full appropriate fee has been paid at that point.

The Court expressly disapproved Page (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch), in which Hildyard J had treated non-payment of the correct fee as fatal to the claimant's position. Andrews LJ held that this misread the Court of Appeal's judgement in Page, which had not decided that payment of the appropriate fee was a precondition to bringing an action. As Lewison LJ had cautioned in Hayes, judgements should not be read as statutory tests on points that were not in issue.

Rationale

The Court's reasoning rests on several foundations. First, the language of the 1980 Act focuses on what the claimant does, not the court. Issue is a function of the court and outside the claimant's control; receipt of the claim form is not. Second, the date of issue is, as a general rule, irrelevant to limitation — it is the latest date on which an action may be considered to have been brought, not the earliest. Third, the alternative rule would produce arbitrary outcomes: whether a limitation defence succeeded or failed would depend on the speed of the court's administrative processes in spotting any shortfall, which can vary considerably.

The Court also noted the position of claimants relying on fee remission, who cannot pay the full fee before the limitation period expires by definition, yet whose claims are plainly brought in time when the claim form and help-with-fees application are lodged together.

Deliberate underpayments remain sanctionable. The Court confirmed that other remedies — including striking out in egregious cases — remain available where a claimant has deliberately undervalued a claim to avoid the correct fee. The present decision is not a licence for manipulation.

Practical implications

The action in Siniakovich was therefore brought within time on 27 March 2025, making the Backdating Application not only legally unsound but entirely unnecessary. The additional fee should have been identified and paid before filing, and its absence exposed the claimant's solicitor to professional criticism — but it did not bar the claim.

The judgement provides welcome clarity. Solicitors filing close to a limitation deadline who pay an incorrect fee, whether through miscalculation or oversight, will not automatically lose the benefit of the date on which the claim form was received. The appropriate fee should always be paid, and care must be taken to ensure the claim form itself accurately reflects all relief sought, including non-monetary remedies. Where both the claim form and Particulars of Claim are filed simultaneously, the fee falls to be assessed by reference to both documents read together.

Copyright & permissions