Home Farm Land Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

A statutory planning challenge must be filed and served within the strict period prescribed by Town and Country Planning Act 1990, subject only to the narrow exception recognised where the final day is a day on which the relevant court office is wholly closed.

Depositing a claim form in a court drop box does not itself constitute filing where the box is outside the court office. Filing occurs when the papers reach the court office and are accepted for filing. A sealed claim form is required for valid service, and service on an individual Government lawyer is ineffective unless that person is authorised to accept service.

The criteria in CPR 7.6 govern an application to extend time for service of a statutory review claim. Prejudice, merits and public interest do not replace the requirements that the claimant took all reasonable steps and acted promptly.

The claimant sought permission to bring a statutory planning review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an Inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal concerning proposed housing development.

The claim form was deposited in the Administrative Court’s Royal Courts of Justice drop box at 15:45 on the final day of the six-week period. It was collected and processed on the following day. An unsealed claim form was emailed to the Government Legal Department before midnight, but the sealed claim form was not successfully served on the correct Government email address until later.

The Secretary of State applied under CPR Part 11 for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant sought declarations that filing and service were timely, or alternatively extensions of time and relief from sanctions.

1. Filing. The claim was not filed within time. Under CPR 2.3(1), filing requires delivery to the court office. The drop box was situated in the reception area of the Royal Courts of Justice, not in the Administrative Court Office. Depositing papers there was analogous to posting them and did not complete filing. The claim could only be filed when collected, brought to the Administrative Court Office and approved for filing by court staff. The sealed claim form recorded filing and issue on 4 November 2022.
2. The Administrative Court’s practice allowed hard-copy claim forms to be deposited in the drop box, but documents placed there after the final collection at 14:30 would ordinarily be processed on the next working day. The claimant could have requested an urgent collection before the office closed at 16:30, but did not do so. The claim was therefore filed out of time.
3. The six-week period under section 288(4B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is mandatory. The court has no general discretion to extend it. The narrow principle in Croke and the earlier authorities applies where the final day is a whole day on which the court office is closed. It does not extend to the claimant’s failure to file during ordinary opening hours. This was not an exceptional case warranting an extension.
4. Service. An unsealed claim form is not validly served. The sealed form was not successfully sent to the designated Government proceedings email address. Sending it to a Government lawyer who was not instructed in the case and had not agreed to accept service was also ineffective.
5. Following R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the principles in CPR 7.6 applied, directly or indirectly, to an application to extend time for service of a statutory review claim. The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to serve in time and had not applied promptly. CPR 3.10 and the Denton approach could not cure the failure. The Secretary of State’s Part 11 application was granted; the court declared that it had no jurisdiction, set aside the claim form, refused permission, and refused the claimant’s applications for an extension and relief from sanctions. Costs were awarded to the defendant.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history was stated in the judgment.