Court jurisdiction over pre-claim injunction applications without claim forms

The Court of Appeal's decision in Gotti v Perrett [2025] EWCA Civ 1168 provides crucial clarification on whether courts retain jurisdiction to make ancillary orders when discharging pre-claim injunctions where no claim form was ever issued.

The procedural trap

Christian Gotti applied for an interim injunction against Karen Perrett under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, using form N16A rather than the required Part 8 procedure. The Worcester County Court granted the injunction without requiring the usual undertakings in damages or directions for issuing a claim form. Critically, no claim form was ever subsequently issued.

Seven months later, when Perrett applied to discharge the injunction and sought costs and damages, Gotti argued the court lacked jurisdiction because there were no "proceedings" before it. His position was stark: having obtained an injunction through procedural error, he could escape liability by relying on his own mistake.

Court of Appeal's robust response

Lord Justice Cobb, delivering the unanimous judgement, dismissed what he termed an "affront to common sense." The Court held that pre-claim injunction applications on form N16A constitute "proceedings" within the meaning of relevant statutory provisions, even when procedurally flawed.

The judgement established several key principles. First, the court's equitable jurisdiction under section 38 County Courts Act 1984 encompasses "any proceedings," not merely Part 7 or Part 8 claims. The Supreme Court's decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers confirmed that injunctive relief need not depend on existing causes of action.

Second, "proceedings" under the Civil Procedure Rules applies broadly to all applications where the court is asked to exercise jurisdiction. CPR r.2.1 states the rules apply to "all proceedings" in county courts, and this includes pre-action applications under CPR Parts 23 and 25.

Third, section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 grants discretionary jurisdiction over "costs of and incidental to all proceedings," supporting the court's power to award costs in these circumstances.

The alternative route: CPR r.3.10

The Court also confirmed that CPR r.3.10 could remedy the procedural error of using form N16A instead of the required N208 claim form. Following Hannigan v Hannigan, the Court took a purposive approach to procedural errors, emphasising that the overriding objective requires preventing parties from benefiting from their own procedural mistakes.

Practical implications

The decision prevents litigants from weaponising procedural errors to escape consequences of obtaining interim relief. Courts retain full case management powers over pre-claim injunction applications, including authority to award costs and damages upon discharge.

The ruling reinforces that interim injunctions take immediate effect regardless of subsequent procedural defects. As Lord Justice Cobb observed, it would be "unconscionable" to allow applicants to benefit from misconceived applications without facing financial consequences.

Gotti v Perrett thus provides welcome clarity on a previously uncertain area, ensuring that procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantial justice in interim injunction proceedings. The decision strengthens the court's ability to manage pre-action applications whilst protecting respondents from wrongful restraints.