HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr X complains that HMCTS did not respond to an email he sent in March 2024 until November 2024, in which he requested that the case be struck out, in accordance with the judge’s directions in the January court order. Mr X says that this caused the proceedings to be unnecessarily prolonged.

4. Mr X says that the situation had a significant impact on his mental well-being and personal life, caused additional stress whilst preparing for the case, which he says should have been dismissed much earlier, and required him to use his annual leave to attend court.

5. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr X is seeking an apology, service improvements, and financial compensation.

6. Mr X was the defendant in proceedings, in which the claim was struck out, as the Particulars of Claim were ‘vague’. The claimant was directed to file and serve fresh Particulars of Claim, by 31 January 2024. The claimant subsequently filed the Particulars of Claim on 19 February.

7. Mr X filed his defence by email on 21 March, within which, he also requested that the claim be ‘struck out’ in accordance with the court order. No response was received to his request at that time.

8. On 24 April, the file was referred to a judge for directions. On 29 April, the judge considered the statements of case and the parties’ directions questionnaires. The judge directed that the claim be allocated to the small claims track, listing the matter for trial on 12 December.

9. Mr X received a response to his follow up email on 20 November, confirming that the claimant filed a further Particulars of Claim and Certificate of Service on 19 February. The response explained that the file was referred for further judicial directions on 24 April.

10. HMCTS stated in its first response ‘I can confirm the Particulars of Claim were clearly marked with the date of receipt when they were referred, and as my colleague advised you in their letter of 4 December, we cannot comment on, or review, a Judge's decision’. HMCTS added ‘The judge made these directions based on the contents of the file which included the claimant's further Particulars of Claim’.

11. Mr X expressed his dissatisfaction and escalated the complaint to the review stage. He stated, ‘The prolonged mishandling of this case has caused undue stress, anxiety, and financial loss, and it has significantly impacted my well-being’. He explained that his March email was to request confirmation that the case was dismissed, as he ‘believed the claimant’s non-compliance was grounds for striking it out’. He stated that his email was ‘met with silence’.

12. HMCTS sent its review response and reiterated that the Particulars of Claim were ‘clearly marked’ with the date of receipt when referred to a judge. It added that it, ‘did not find any maladministration by court staff. The case progressed as directed by Judiciary and at the hearing on 12 December 2024 the Judge directed that the claim be struck out pursuant to the order in January 2024’.

13. Mr X again expressed dissatisfaction with HMCTS’ response and escalated the matter to the appeal stage, stating that his email should have been placed before a judge, promptly. He further asserted that the administrative delays and procedural missteps had caused ‘tangible harm, both mental and financial’ and that in his view, if his email had been dealt with promptly ‘this entire fiasco could have been avoided’.

14. HMCTS sent its final response in January 2025 and stated, ‘I understand that you are unhappy the claimant’s Particulars of Claim were accepted by the judge, even though they were filed after the deadline had already passed. I hope you'll understand that it's not possible for us to comment on why the judge chose to continue the case, or review a judicial decision’.

15. It added that Mr X’s email was not responded to until November due to ‘The high volumes of work we were experiencing at this time which impacted on our ability to respond within our usual timescales. ‘I’d like to sincerely apologise to you for this delay and any inconvenience it caused you. Even so, I'm satisfied that the orders made on 3 April and 14 May, advised that your claim had been allocated to the small claims track, would have informed you that your claim was still active, and that a hearing had been arranged for the 12 December’.

16. Mr X was signposted to the PHSO via an MP referral, if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

18. Our role as a complaint investigation organisation has powers and limitations set in legislation. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (the Act) governs our powers, and although this allows us to investigate public bodies, there are some matters we cannot investigate.

19. The judiciary is an entirely independent body made up of judges, magistrates, tribunal members, who uphold the rule of law.

20. Under Schedule 3, paragraph 6(A) of the Act, we have no powers to investigate any action taken by any member of the judiciary or their decision making, and we are excluded from investigating matters subject to or having been subject to legal proceedings.

21. On 21 March 2024, Mr X filed his defence and counterclaim by email and, within the body of that correspondence, requested that the claim be struck out automatically, pursuant to the order.

22. The email stated ‘I request for this claim to be struck out automatically as per the court order issued by the Deputy District Judge, which clearly stipulates that the claimant must file and serve fresh, not amended particulars of claim together with a response pack limited to two pages, alongside proof of the current contract and said breaches within as of the deadline of 31st January. The claimant has clearly failed to comply with this order, this warranting an automatic striking out of the claim. In any event, please find attached my defence’.

23. From the terms of this email, it is clear that Mr X was not merely seeking administrative clarification from HMCTS, but was making a substantive legal assertion, that the claim had been automatically struck out, and inviting the court to give effect to that strike-out.

24. The evidence in effect indicates that, Mr X was asking the court to exercise judicial consideration, not simply requesting information.

25. HMCTS have told us that, although the email was not specifically referred to a judge upon receipt, a copy of it, together with the claimant’s Particulars of Claim and Certificate of Service (showing the date of service) were retained on the court file, and were available for review when the matter was referred to a judge on 24 April 2024.

26. The evidence indicates that, the judge subsequently issued directions and, in May 2024, a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track was sent, confirming that the matter had been listed for trial in December.

27. It is noted that, the issuing of that allocation order indicates that the judge did not consider the claim to have been struck out, and determined that it should proceed.

28. Mr X has stated that he did not receive a response to his March email until November, after he followed the matter up, and that this lack of response ‘prolonged uncertainty’ and led to the case progressing when, in his view, it should already have been dismissed.

29. We acknowledge that the absence of a direct reply would have been frustrating and recognise that the prolonged uncertainty worsened his anxiety and depression.

30. The allocation order issued in May would have confirmed that the claim remained active and was proceeding to trial. That order effectively answered the substance of his request, namely whether the claim had been struck out.

31. Any uncertainty that may have existed between March and May 2024, would have been resolved upon receipt of the allocation notice.

32. It is also relevant that, although the January order stated that the claim would be struck out automatically if the claimant failed to comply by 31 January, confirmation of such strike-out would still require judicial consideration.

33. The progression of the case to trial was therefore not caused by any administrative omission, or failure to respond to correspondence, but was the result of a judicial decision made after the file, including Mr X’s email, was put before the judge.

34. We recognise that this has been an exceedingly difficult time for Mr X and sympathise with the impact this situation has had.

35. As the decision to allocate the matter to the Small Claims Track and list it for trial was judicial, it falls outside the remit of the PHSO to investigate. We cannot take any further action on this complaint.

36. If Mr X considers that the judge erred in law by failing to give effect to, or by misinterpreting the January order, the appropriate course would have been to challenge that decision through the courts.

37. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention and wish him well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about HMCTS. We are sorry to hear how much distress the whole situation has caused Mr X.

2. We have decided not to take any further action on this complaint as it is not within our legal remit to investigate judicial decisions. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.