Karen Lawrence, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

For a statutory challenge requiring an application to be made within a fixed period, the claim is made when a valid claim form is delivered to a court office of the High Court within time. Filing is ordinarily a unilateral act. Acknowledgment, acceptance or issue by court staff is not generally required. Sending the claim to the wrong specialist office within the relevant High Court division is a procedural error, rather than a failure to make the application, where the claim form is valid. The error may be corrected under CPR rule 3.10, including by transfer to the proper office and correction of the filing date. The court must distinguish this question from valid service, which may engage different rules and considerations.

The claimant challenged the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood scheme under paragraph 35 of Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The statutory challenge had to be made within six weeks of the relevant orders, making 7 May 2024 the final day.

On that day, the claimant emailed a valid claim form and supporting documents to the King’s Bench Division’s general enquiries address. The documents were intended for the Administrative Court Office, as required by Practice Direction 54D, but were not forwarded there until 21 May. The defendant applied to strike out the claim as out of time. The central issue was whether delivery to the wrong court office meant that no application had been made to the High Court within the statutory period.

1. The defendant’s application was dismissed. The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the statutory challenge. The claim was made on 7 May 2024, and the court declared that date to be the date on which it was made.
2. Paragraph 35 of Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 required an application to be made to the High Court within six weeks. The word made contemplated steps which the claimant could take unilaterally. Applying Barnes v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (Practice Note) [2007] 1 WLR 879, and the related provisions of Practice Direction 7A, a valid claim form is filed when it is delivered to the relevant court office. Its later acknowledgment, acceptance or issue does not alter the date on which it was brought.
3. Practice Direction 54D required this Planning Court claim to be issued or lodged in the Administrative Court Office. That requirement identified the correct specialist office, but paragraph 35 did not contain clear words making strict compliance with every procedural allocation a precondition to the statutory time limit. Delivery of the claim form to the Central Office of the King’s Bench Division was delivery to a court office of the High Court. The error was therefore procedural.
4. The electronic delivery was distinguishable from the drop-box facts in Home Farm v Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2566 (Admin). In the present case there was an electronic record of delivery and the documents had been acknowledged by the King’s Bench Division on 7 May. Home Farm did not establish that filing always required a response or approval from court staff.
5. The error could be corrected under CPR rule 3.10 by transferring the claim to the Administrative Court Office and, so far as necessary, recording 7 May 2024 as the filing date. There was no identified prejudice to the defendant. The authorities concerning retrospective validation of service, including Good Law Project v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] 1 WLR 2336, did not govern the question whether the claim had first been made.

First-instance decision on the defendant’s application to strike out the statutory challenge as out of time. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.