In the case of Shabana Chowdhury v Haven Insurance Co Ltd (County Court at Birmingham, 25 July 2025) Dominic was successful for the defendant in its cross application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process in the post-Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 arena. The case concerns the procedure for starting claims under the RTA Small Claims Protocol (“the Protocol”) for limitation purposes, of which there is very little reported case law.

The background to this matter concerned a road traffic accident that occurred on 23 September 2021. A SCNF was submitted on 29 September 2021. The Defendant admitted liability in the portal on 9 June 2022. A medical report was then produced on 26 June 2022. After a period of delay lasting over 2 years the Claimant filed its Form RTASC O which was sent to the court on 18 November 2024, 1 month and 26 days after limitation.

The Claimant utilised PD27B para. 9.2 to start the claim which provides:

Where the claimant believes it is not possible to comply with the RTA Small Claims Protocol before the expiry of the limitation period, the claimant may use the procedure set out in this section (emphasis added).

The Claimant in its RTASC O confirmed that the requirements of PD27B para. 9.3 were met, which includes (among other things) confirming that a stay of proceedings is sought in order to comply with the Protocol. An Order was accordingly made staying the claim for 1 year pursuant to PD27B 9.5(2).

Further down the line the Claimant made an application to extend time under s.33 Limitation Act 1980. The Defendant cross-applied to strike out the claim.

In dealing with the application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process first, the District Judge agreed that the procedure used by the Claimant to issue the claim was not open to it once limitation had expired. Accepting that the term “abuse of process” can be defined as using a process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use (per Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice in Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759, DC), the judge had no difficulty in finding that there was an abuse of process.

The defendant was further successful in persuading the court that strike out was the appropriate sanction. The following factors were of significance:

  1. The aim of the RTA Small Claims Protocol is to enable a streamlined, proportionate process and not subject the court to applications of the type made by the claimant and defendant. The overriding objective demands enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
  2. The defendant was deprived of raising a limitation defence because of the claimants handling of the claim. The stay was granted as an administrative step when it was not open to the claimant to request it on the basis that it did.
  3. The claimant failed to explain why the incorrect procedure had been used and why they had ostensibly misled the court by requesting a stay post-limitation to comply with the Protocol when they already had all the documents they intended to rely upon. 
  4. The claim was not actively progressed for a considerable period of time both before and, crucially, after limitation had expired. Allowing claimants to side-step limitation in the way the claimant did would set a poor example for future dilatory claimants.

This case illustrates the importance of actively progressing claims under the RTA Small Claims Protocol and the stringent approach courts may take to inappropriately using PD27B to obtain a stay of proceedings after limitation has lapsed.

Dominic was instructed by Philip Thompson, a Senior Associate in the Large Loss team at Flint Bishop Ltd.

Download this page
Back to Top