David Standish & Anor v Daniel Walter Hill & Anor

A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service must comply with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 11 if intending to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, including on the ground of defective service. Failure to apply within 14 days ordinarily results in acceptance of jurisdiction. A time limit does not attract a sanction merely because it is imposed by an order. Substituted service may be effective where documents are left at the defendant’s usual abode and the recipient has been informed of their contents, particularly where service is being avoided. Electronic service of originating process requires a prior written indication that it will be accepted electronically.

The joint trustees in bankruptcy brought claims concerning transactions said to fall within section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and alleged sham trusts. They obtained an order extending time for service of the claim form and permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Mr Hill applied for declarations that he had not been served, for the relevant order to be set aside, and for related relief. He had filed an acknowledgment of service but had not applied under CPR rule 11 within 14 days to challenge jurisdiction. The issues were whether that failure precluded a service challenge, whether he had waived the objection at common law, whether substituted service in Florida was effective, and whether service by email on his solicitors was valid.

The March and April applications were dismissed.

1. CPR rule 11. A challenge to whether an originating process has been served is a jurisdictional challenge. Once Mr Hill filed an acknowledgment of service, he was required to apply under CPR rule 11(1) within 14 days. His failure to do so meant that, under rule 11(5), he was treated as having accepted the court’s jurisdiction. Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd was directly applicable. Pitalia v NHS England reinforced the need for an application under rule 11 where an acknowledgment of service had been filed.
2. Common-law waiver. Independently, Mr Hill’s acknowledgment of service, stated intention to defend the claim and request for an extension of time to file a defence objectively demonstrated waiver of any right to object to jurisdiction.
3. Substituted service. Service had been effected in Florida on 25 January 2025. The statutory requirement to inform the recipient of the contents had been met on 22 January. The refusal to accept the papers and subsequent conduct demonstrated an attempt to avoid service.
4. Email service. Service was not effected on 19 February 2025. The solicitors’ correspondence indicated willingness to accept future documents electronically, not the originating process.
5. Extension of time. If necessary, time would have been extended under the overriding objective. The order contained no express sanction, and no sanction could properly be implied. The Denton approach was therefore not the starting point. The application to set aside the extension would also have failed on the merits, including because no arguable limitation defence had been shown.