Less money, more problems: when does time cease to run if an incorrect fee is paid?

In this article, pupil barrister Abbi Robinson, who is “on her feet” from 1 April 2026, discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215.

1. When is a claim that has been rejected by the Court Office for failure to pay the appropriate fee brought for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1980? The Court of Appeal in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215 has found that no legal test exists and that such a claim is brought when the claim form is filed at the court office, even if the correct fee is not paid.

Background 

2. Ms Siniakovich brought proceedings against the Defendants which included claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The claim form claimed damages of £370,000 only whilst the particulars of claim, settled by counsel, also claimed various forms of non-monetary relief.
3. Ms Siniakovich’s solicitor attempted to CE-file the claim form and particulars of claim on 27 March 2025, the day before expiration of the limitation period. The solicitor was unaware of the non-monetary claims having not read the particulars of claim; as a result they paid only the £10,000 fee for the monetary claim and not the additional sum for the non-monetary claims.
4. The filing was rejected by the court on the basis that the appropriate fee had not been paid in accordance with PD51O. The solicitor immediately paid the outstanding fee, resubmitted the claim form and particulars of claim and filed an application for relief. 
5. Upon hearing the application, the High Court held that the claim had been brought on 27 March 2025 as the correct fee for the monetary claim contained in the claim form had been paid and therefore was not time-barred.
6. The Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the Judge was wrong in the law, asserting that the defamation claims were time-barred.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment 

7. Lady Andrews identified the real issue of the appeal: does the failure to pay the correct fee at the time when the claim form is received by the court office mean that an action has not been brought on that date for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980?
8. The Court first considered The Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 (“the Order”) and Part 7 of the CPR. It noted that Sch 1 of the Order specified that fees were payable on starting proceedings which, pursuant to CPR 7.2(1), occurred upon issue of the claim form (paragraphs 51 – 53), which was not the same as the point of ‘bringing’.
9. Turning to case law, the Court conducted a comprehensive review. In particular it focused on the case of Page (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch) , another case in which the claimant’s failure to pay the appropriate fee was only discovered after the expiry of the limitation period. It was held that Page No 2 had been wrongly decided and that the judge in this case had erred in finding that there was a legal test requiring the court to examine whether the claimant has done all within their power, or all that is necessary and sufficient, to bring the proceedings in order to gauge whether time has ceased to run for limitation purposes. The Court of Appeal found that no such test existed and that the question of whether an action had been brought was a matter of substance, not form. Further, it was found that ‘bringing’ refers to an action on the part of the claimant which was separate from the administrative process of fee payment.
10. The Court then considered Parliament’s intention when creating the Limitation Act 1980, finding that it cannot have been intended that a defendant should be entitled to raise a defence of time-bar to a meritorious claim merely because the whole of the prescribed fee was not paid. 
11. Finally, the Court considered various policy considerations, finding that allowing a failure to pay the full fee to delay the time at which an action is brought could lead to vastly different outcomes for claimants depending upon whether they were represented or unrepresented, filing electronically or in hardcopy, or even on such factors out of their control such as the speed of the court office at dealing with the claim form. It felt that it was necessary to instead draw a bright line, so that a claim would fall clearly on one side or the other regardless of its various circumstances.
12. The Court also noted that failure to pay the full fee could not mean that an action was not brought in time as this would significantly disadvantage claimants who applied for help with fees as they would necessarily be required to begin the application process a considerable amount of time prior to expiry of the limitation period in order to ascertain and pay the amount of any contribution they were required to make. In practice this would leave impecunious claimants without the full limitation period intended by Parliament.
13. Taking all of the above into consideration, the Court held that an action is brought when the claim form is first delivered to the court office even if the office refuses to file it, or it fails acceptance when electronically filed, due to payment of the incorrect fee.

Comment 

14. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has brought clarity to an issue which is likely to become more prevalent with the increasing use of CE-File and other electronic filing mechanisms. It has restored the position prior to Page (No 2) that a claim is brought when received by the court office, regardless of whether it is electronically or physically filed. The bright line that has been drawn by the Court allows for parity regardless of a claimant’s individual circumstances and confirms that bringing an action is reliant only upon the claimant and their representatives. 
15. The decision does raise the issue of unscrupulous claimants who may deliberately underpay or withhold a shortfall to buy themselves additional time. Lady Andrews made it clear at paragraph 122 that such behaviour was capable of attracting other sanctions at the court’s discretion, including strike out for the worst cases. 
16. It is important to note that this decision considered only those cases where some fee had been paid upon filing, albeit that it was incorrect. The Court did not consider the scenario in which no fee is proffered or paid when the claim form is filed and the Court was clear at paragraph 123 that it would not consider this point until a case in which this occurred has come before it. There is therefore still a question as to whether, where a claim is CE-Filed pursuant to PD51O and no fee is paid, the claim is brought when the claim form is submitted or when the fee is paid. 

Abbi is undertaking a specialist Business & Property pupillage under the supervision of Kirsty White and will be available to accept instructions from 1 April 2026.

To instruct Abbi or for any other enquiries, please contact the clerks at Commercial@st-philips.com

This article reflects the law as of the date it was published. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational and/or informational purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of St Philips Chambers.