Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited

Procedural steps taken during a stay are not automatically nullities. A stay postpones the enforcement of procedural obligations and extends deadlines, but it does not invalidate a step taken during the stay. The terms of the stay may authorise agreed steps without a further consent order. Service of a claim form on a company is effective when delivered to its registered office, even if the package is addressed imprecisely or to a person who does not work there. Actual delivery of the particulars of claim with the claim form determines the date of service; deemed-service provisions do not displace that fact. Relief from sanctions may be refused where the applicant seeks relief to pursue a procedural challenge that would otherwise be unavailable, particularly where granting relief would require the court to apply inconsistent standards to the parties’ defaults.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning alleged defects in residential building works. The parties had agreed a six-month stay, recorded in a consent order, which expired at 4 pm on 11 December 2022. The claimant delivered the claim form and particulars of claim to the defendant’s registered office on 9 December 2022 and sent electronic copies by email.

The defendant filed its acknowledgement of service one week late and then applied for relief from sanctions and challenged the court’s jurisdiction under Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The claimant sought confirmation that the particulars of claim had been served in time, or alternatively an extension of time and procedural rectification. The central issues were whether service during the stay was valid, whether the particulars of claim were served late, whether service at the registered office was defective, and whether relief from sanctions should be granted.

1. Relief from sanctions. The three-stage test in Denton v T H White Ltd was applied. Although a seven-day delay in filing the acknowledgement of service would ordinarily not be serious or significant, the defendant’s explanation was unconvincing. The defendant had actual or readily available knowledge of the proceedings and failed to organise legal representation. The circumstances as a whole weighed against relief because the defendant sought relief in order to advance a jurisdiction challenge which was otherwise unavailable. Granting relief would involve applying a double standard by excusing the defendant’s default so that it could then rely on the claimant’s alleged procedural default. Relief was refused.
2. Effect of the stay. Service of the claim form and particulars of claim on 9 December 2022 was valid. Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) Ltd did not mean that originating process served during a stay was a nullity. A stay postpones the running and enforcement of procedural deadlines. It does not nullify steps taken during its currency. The terms of the consent order expressly contemplated service by agreement instead of an application for directions. A further consent order was not required to permit that course.
3. Service of the particulars of claim. The particulars of claim were delivered with the claim form and were actually served on 9 December 2022. The deemed-service provisions in Part 6 were therefore irrelevant. No relief or extension was required.
4. Service at the registered office. The documents were delivered to the defendant’s registered office, the relevant place under CPR rule 7.5. Good service on a limited company did not require the package to identify the precise group company or to be addressed to a person working there. The defendant was responsible for identifying and dealing with documents delivered to its registered office.
5. The defendant’s Part 11 application could not proceed because there was no valid acknowledgement of service under CPR rule 11.2. The court nevertheless rejected the substantive grounds advanced. The defendant’s application was dismissed, the claimant’s good service was declared, and the defendant was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the claimant’s costs of both applications. Permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance decision. Permission to appeal was refused.