Bellway Homes Limited v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House

Valid service of a claim form triggers a defendant’s obligations under CPR Parts 9–11. Where the court decides that service was invalid or late and refuses an extension, the defendant need not acknowledge service or make a separate CPR Part 11 application if the claimant’s own application has already put service and jurisdiction before the court.

For document-exchange service, leaving documents in a solicitor’s reception for future collection is insufficient. The documents must pass irrevocably into the service provider’s possession. CPR 6.14 does not validate late or defective service, and no material distinction exists between using an invalid method and completing a valid method out of time.

Occupiers brought claims arising from a serious residential-building fire against the developer and others. A court order required the claim form and particulars of claim to be filed and served by 4 pm on 21 April 2023. The occupiers’ solicitors attempted fax transmission and left the claim form in their reception for later collection by a document-exchange courier. The particulars were not served by the deadline.

Master Dagnall held in [2024] EWHC 1579 (KB) that service was late and refused an extension, but held that the developer nevertheless had to acknowledge service and challenge jurisdiction under CPR Part 11. In a second judgment, [2025] EWHC 772 (KB), he refused the developer permission to take those steps out of time.

The developer appealed; the occupiers cross-appealed on whether leaving the claim form for courier collection satisfied CPR 7.5.

1. Disposition. The cross-appeal was dismissed and the appeal allowed unanimously. Both of the Master’s orders were set aside.
2. Leaving the claim form in the solicitors’ reception for later collection did not satisfy CPR 7.5. Factually, the occupiers had not proved that the documents were left there before 4 pm. Legally, “leaving with” a document-exchange provider requires transmission into the provider’s possession. Each prescribed step is positive and irrevocable. A document remaining within the sender’s control can be retrieved or amended and has not been served. Nor can “left for collection” be created by combining the distinct alternatives “leaving with” and “collection by”. For next-business-day document-exchange delivery by the ordered deadline, the documents had to be handed over on the previous day.
3. CPR 6.14 deems service on the second business day only where the relevant step under CPR 7.5(1) has been completed. The provision does not validate a defective method or a step completed late. Procedurally, no useful distinction exists between performing a step defectively within time and performing it correctly out of time.
4. A defendant who acknowledges service but fails to apply under CPR 11 ordinarily accepts jurisdiction. A minor defect in the acknowledgment may nevertheless be excused where the surrounding circumstances make the jurisdictional challenge plain.
5. The defendant’s obligations under CPR Parts 9–11 presuppose valid service. Once the court has determined that a claim form was not served in time and has refused an extension under CPR 7.6, the defendant need not acknowledge service. Nor must it make a separate Part 11 application where the claimant’s own application has already placed service and jurisdiction before the court. Such an application would merely duplicate procedure, time and costs.
6. [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 was indistinguishable and binding. Since the claim form was not validly served and no extension was available, the proceedings could not continue against the developer. Phillips LJ concurred. Andrews LJ agreed and particularly endorsed the conclusion that civil procedure cannot force a defendant to submit despite invalid service.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 1347, unanimously allowed the developer’s appeal, dismissed the occupiers’ cross-appeal and set aside both orders below.
2. High Court, King’s Bench Division: Master Dagnall held in [2024] EWHC 1579 (KB) that the claim form had not been served in time and refused an extension, but decided that the developer had to acknowledge service and apply under CPR Part 11.
3. High Court, King’s Bench Division: In [2025] EWHC 772 (KB), Master Dagnall refused the developer permission to acknowledge service or make a Part 11 application out of time.