CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357

At paras. 33-34 Swift J says that his conclusion in the previous paragraphs is “consistent with” the scheme of the Procedure Rules because rules 10 and 12 explicitly require the rejection of non-compliant claims and it is accordingly unnecessary to resort to a jurisdictional analysis in order to achieve the result which is the evident purpose of section 18A.

Mr Baker submitted that that point amounted to using secondary legislation as an aid to the construction of a statutory provision in the absence of the special circumstances in which that is permissible: he referred to Hanlon v Law Society [1981] AC 124 and R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, [2023] 1 WLR 2594. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to decide that question, because even if Swift J’s point is admissible it does not advance the argument. It makes equal sense for the Rules to provide for the rejection of a claim which does not comply with the requirements of section 18A whether the bar is jurisdictional or not.