The Dekagram: 28th July 2026

In this week’s Dekagram, Daniel Boal dissects what happens when the court office refuses to issue a claim form, whilst Conor Kennedy examines another case on forum non conveniens. Regular readers will note immediately that Daniel is new to the Dekagram family; he joins us from practice in Manchester, where he’s made a name for himself as a Rising Star and Inspirational Presence – and we can confirm that he is an all round Good Egg. We hope our readers will join with us in warmly welcoming him to the Dekagang.

R (Cakebread-Snow) v County Court at Durham [2026] EWHC 1758 (Admin): Issuing a claim is not a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise

Introduction

In R (Cakebread-Snow) v County Court at Durham [2026] EWHC 1758 (Admin), it was confirmed that a court office which is presented with a claim for issuing by a claimant is entitled to refer the papers to a judge for directions rather than simply issuing whatever is placed before it. This case is a useful reminder that the issuing of a claim is not merely a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise; court staff are expected to exercise a degree of scrutiny, and they are entitled to refer the papers to a judge before the claim is issued.

The facts

The Claimant, a litigant in person, arrived at Durham County Court at 3.30pm on Friday 22 November 2024 with a claim for issue. The documents provided to the court consisted of an N1 claim form, particulars of claim, a number of completed application forms, and a substantial quantity of other paperwork. It was brought in several lever-arch files and it ran to 583 pages in total. The N1 itself gave an address for service, was signed under a statement of truth, identified three defendants, identified causes of action in personal injury, human rights and wrongful imprisonment/arrest and assault. Damages (unquantified) were sought and there was no dispute that any fee that was due had been paid.

The court office declined to issue the claim there and then, indicating that it would take too long that afternoon and that a full set of copy documents had not been provided. The Claimant emailed later the same afternoon to complain. On returning the following Monday, the Claimant was told the additional copy document was not strictly necessary, but that the office had not issued the claim but had instead referred all of the paperwork to a judge for directions.

District Judge Richardson then made an order of the court’s own motion, without a hearing. The order contained recitals that the particulars of claim did not comply with CPR 16.4(1) as containing a concise statement of facts, that the claim as presented was likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings and susceptible to strike out, and that it would be unreasonable to issue it in its current format. He directed that the “583 page claim forms” be returned for editing and resubmission and dismissed various interim applications. That order was later set aside by District Judge Hambler, who directed the Claimant to file an amended claim form and particulars of claim for service by the court. The material identified as extraneous was to be returned to the Claimant.

The Claimant pursued both an appeal of District Judge Hambler’s order and a judicial review, insisting that it was his right to have the entire bundle issued exactly as provided to the court staff at 3:30pm on Friday 22 November 2024.

During the judicial review proceedings, the Court was asked whether it was lawful for the County Court not to have issued the Claimant’s claim.

The judgment

As a starting point, it was common ground between both parties that a court office has no general discretion to refuse to issue a claim form. A line of authority from Clarke v Bradlaugh (1881) 8 QBD 63, through Dresser UK Ltd v Falcongate Ltd [1992] 1 QB 502, to Riniker v University College London (The Times, 17th April 1999) confirms that the issue of a claim is an act of the party which “cannot be refused”. This line of authority goes further, and (in the case of Riniker at least) it suggests that a claim form should be issued by court staff ‘there and then’ upon receipt of the claim.

However, this line of case law must be viewed in context. These are older cases, and the focus in each case revolved around concerns that, were a court office to fail to issue a claim form immediately upon receipt, a claimant may find themselves out of time for the purposes of any applicable limitation period. This is no longer a concern. The CPR and Practice Direction 7A paragraph 6.1 provides that a claim is ‘brought’ for limitation purposes when it is received in the court office, rather than when it is issued. Against this background, it was found that the court office did not act unlawfully by failing to issue the claim immediately upon receipt of the documents from a claimant.

Further, whilst court staff are not performing a judicial function and have no general discretion to refuse to issue a claim form, they do operate a compliance function and must, as a result, apply a “degree of scrutiny” before taking the step of issuing a claim. Staff are not required to “close their eyes and stamp whatever is put in front of them”. They must consider, at least at a threshold level, whether what has been delivered is properly recognisable as a claim form at all. The cases of Barnes v St Helens MBC [2007] 1 WLR 879, Chelfat v Hutchinson 3G Ltd [2022] 1 All ER 461 and Guo v Kinder [2024] EWCA Civ 762 were all cited in judgment. In Chelfat, the Court of Appeal went so far as to contemplate that “exceptional circumstances” might (in theory) justify a refusal to issue even a legitimate claim.

The requirement for court staff to apply a “degree of scrutiny” to claim forms before they are issued leads onto a third point. CPR 3.2 enables court officers to consult a judge prior to taking any step and it enables that step to instead be taken by a judge (as opposed to the court officer). This freedom is unrestricted. It applies to the step of issuing a claim. There are strong policy reasons for this ability to refer steps to judges. Officers should have ready access to authoritative guidance or rulings on points of practice and procedure. Judges may wish to consider the exercise of any powers to make case management decisions and orders of the court’s own motion before officers take a step. Further, such a step protects court staff from being “caught in procedural crossfire and dragged into litigation”. That freedom of access, it was observed, is “fundamental to the modern architecture of the administration of justice”.

As a result of these factors, the Court Office did not act unlawfully in declining to issue the claim immediately upon receipt of the documents. Nor did it act unlawfully in consulting a judge before deciding whether to issue the claim at the request of the Claimant.

Comment

It is worth remembering that the act of issuing a claim is not a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise and there is no automatic entitlement to have a claim issued in whatever form that claim is presented to a court office. The case is also a reminder that court officers must exercise a degree of scrutiny when taking steps in litigation and have an unrestricted freedom to consult a judge when taking any step, pursuant to CPR 3.2.

About the Author

Daniel Boal was called in 2020 and now takes instructions in a wide range of personal injury and clinical negligence matters, acting for both claimants and defendants, with a particular focus on cases involving serious injuries. He is ranked as a ‘Rising Star’ in the 2025 and 2026 editions of the Legal 500 and the latest edition says of him, ‘Daniel is an extremely strong communicator. He is clearly focused on the quality and reliability of his work, and he displays a confidence and working knowledge of the law that creates an inspirational presence.‘

Forum Non Conveniens and Unreliable Foreign Judiciaries: Janashia v Georgia Capital Plc

In a recent extempore judgment, Richards J granted permission for a claimant to rely on expert evidence relating to the independence of the Georgian judiciary to support a contention that England, not Georgia, was the appropriate forum for a dispute regarding the sale of shares in a Georgian company.

There is as yet no transcript of the judgment, but a brief digest is available at [2026] 7 WLUK 439. The decision offers an opportunity to review the law on forum non conveniens where there are grounds to suspect that a foreign court might be less than impartial.

The Facts

The claimant founded a company incorporated in Georgia which owned schools. In 2019 she sold shares in the company to the second defendant for around US$10 million. In 2025 she sued the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, alleging that she had been induced to sell by misrepresentations; and obtained permission to serve certain defendants out of the jurisdiction. The defendants contested jurisdiction, and sought a stay on forum non conveniens grounds.

The claimant’s response to the jurisdictional challenge was that she could not obtain justice in the Georgian courts, on the basis that they are susceptible to the influence of powerful businessmen, including one of the defendants.

To support her case, the Claimant applied for permission to rely on expert evidence on the Georgian court system. Richards J granted it: the expert may address the independence of the Georgian judiciary and whether there are informal mechanisms by which influence is exercised within the judicial system, including through the High Council of Justice.

The Framework: Substantial Justice and the Spiliada Second Stage

The substantive framework is uncontroversial. Where a defendant can establish that a foreign court is clearly the more appropriate forum, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that justice nevertheless requires trial in England (Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, at 478). One way claimants can do this is by showing that there is a real risk that the claimant will not obtain substantial justice in the foreign forum (see, e.g. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corpn [2013] 2 AC 337).

In The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398 (at 411) Lord Diplock made clear that allegations that a friendly foreign state will deny a litigant justice must be supported by positive and cogent evidence, as judicial comity requires significant scrutiny before an English court will condemn the courts of a civilised and friendly state. The claimant need not prove that injustice will occur, only a real risk that it may.

Expert Evidence

The issue of whether a foreign judiciary behaves improperly, or without due independence, appears to have been accepted by Richards J as falling within the scope of Part 35, and thereby to be admissible.

It is important to recognise that this was not a case of expert evidence as to foreign law, at least on the letter of Georgian law, but rather an allegation that influence flows through informal channels, including the High Council of Justice, which is the judicial appointments and discipline body for Georgia.

The High Council of Justice has been the subject of sustained international scrutiny. In April 2023, the US State Department designated four Georgian judges for significant corruption connected with their roles as court chairmen and members of the High Council of Justice, and the Venice Commission has repeatedly pressed for reform of the Council amid concerns about corporatism and concentrated informal power.

The extent to which such informal influence exists, how it operates, and whether it would affect a commercial claim against a powerful local businessman, are questions an English judge simply cannot reasonably determine without the assistance of Part 35 expert opinion. Whilst it may be possible to work from public reports or documents, the nature of the informal influence allegedly exercised likely made the present case particularly suitable for expert opinion evidence.

Expert evidence is to be permitted if it is necessary to resolve an issue between the parties. If it is not necessary, but would be of assistance, then the court will consider proportionality. In the context of a multi-million pound dispute, an expert’s report costing some £11,000 was held to be proportionate and reasonably required.

Analysis

The judgment addresses an issue of increasing interest in the modern age of geopolitics, where concerns about the rule of law are growing across numerous states. A claimant in a case such as this will need to make any application for expert evidence promptly. Before making any application, they will need to consider proportionality, and whether they can establish the necessary doubt as to the foreign courts by means of documentary evidence rather than by procuring a Part 35 compliant report. And lastly, they should remember that the test is whether there is a real risk that substantial justice cannot be obtained, as opposed to having to prove that on the balance of probabilities.

About the Author

Called in 2011, prior to pupillage Conor Kennedy spent two years working with a leading insurance law firm, gaining experience across regulatory, employment, leisure, travel and public sector teams. He has a varied civil practice and is accredited for Direct Access instruction, but has a particular interest and expertise in claims involving fundamental dishonesty.