The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor

Service of a claim form by an appropriate method remains effective even where the service step was completed outside the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The claim form is not thereby rendered a nullity or placed in permanent limbo.

Such service triggers the time limit for filing an acknowledgment of service and the subsequent procedure under CPR Part 11. A defendant wishing to challenge jurisdiction must act within those limits or obtain an extension and relief from sanctions. The court should apply the three-stage approach in Denton.

Late particulars of claim are governed by the overriding objective rather than directly by the relief-from-sanctions regime. A court may permit joinder after the limitation period, provided the joinder is expressly deemed to occur on the date of the order.

The claim concerned alleged defects arising from a fire at Samuel Garside House. The claim against the second defendant had settled, but issues remained between the claimants and Bellway Homes Limited.

The claim form and particulars of claim had been served out of time using an otherwise appropriate method. Bellway had not filed an acknowledgment of service or made a CPR Part 11 application within the prescribed periods. It subsequently sought permission to file an acknowledgment of service retrospectively and to challenge jurisdiction. The claimants sought permission to rely on late particulars of claim and to add further claimants.

The central questions were whether late but procedurally valid service triggered the CPR time limits, whether Bellway should receive relief from sanctions, whether the late particulars should be permitted, and on what limitation basis additional claimants could be joined.

1. Late service. Service by an appropriate method outside the CPR 7.5 time limit was effective service. The claim form was not a nullity and was not in permanent limbo. The relevant distinction was between an impermissible method of service, which produces no service in law, and an appropriate method used late.
2. CPR Parts 10 and 11. Once appropriate service occurred, CPR 10.3 was engaged. A defendant wishing to dispute jurisdiction or contend that the court should not exercise jurisdiction had to file an acknowledgment of service and then make a CPR Part 11 application within the prescribed period. This construction promoted certainty and avoided a defendant being able to wait indefinitely before taking the point.
3. Relief from sanctions. Permission to file the acknowledgment of service out of time and pursue the jurisdiction challenge required relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. Applying the three-stage Denton approach, the breach was serious and substantial, there was no sufficient reason for the delay, and the defendant had ignored repeated judicial invitations and a case-management order. The burden of showing that relief was just had not been discharged.
4. Particulars of claim. The late particulars were permitted. CPR 3.9 did not directly apply because the CPR imposed no express or relevant implied sanction for late service of particulars. The court nevertheless considered compliance, delay, prejudice and the overriding objective, using the Denton analysis as a useful tool.
5. Additional claimants. Permission was granted to add the further claimants. For limitation purposes, the joinder was deemed to occur on the date of the order, with questions under sections 11 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 reserved for trial. The claim was to continue, with no CPR Part 11 challenge permitted.

The judgment followed the court’s earlier decision, [2024] EWHC 1579. The claim against the second defendant had been disposed of by consent. The present judgment determined the remaining procedural issues against the first defendant’s jurisdiction challenge.