Valentine London Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a planning statutory review claim, the six-week period for filing and serving the sealed claim form is strict, precise and unqualified. Sending an unsealed or incorrect claim form does not achieve the purpose of service and cannot ordinarily be retrospectively validated as good service under CPR 6.15. Relief requires a genuine good reason, assessed by reference to all the circumstances, including the claimant’s reasonable steps, the defendant’s knowledge and prejudice. An extension under CPR 7.6(3), applied by analogy, requires all reasonable steps to have been taken during the prescribed period and a prompt application. Clear information about the correct service address, followed by an inexcusable failure to use it, will ordinarily defeat both forms of relief, including where the claimant acts in person.

The Secretary of State’s planning inspector issued an adverse decision concerning a principal-home condition on residential flats. The claimant brought a planning statutory review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The claim form was filed and sealed on 28 July 2025, the final day of the six-week period. The claimant did not serve the sealed claim form on the Government Legal Department’s designated email address or correct postal address. Instead, unsealed and inappropriate judicial review papers had earlier been emailed, and the claimant asserted that the sealed claim was posted to an incorrect departmental address.

The claimant sought discharge of an order setting aside the claim, retrospective validation under CPR 6.15 and an extension of time under CPR 3.1(2)(a), applying CPR 7.6(3).

1. Relief refused. The order setting aside the planning statutory review claim was upheld. The court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claimant’s application for retrospective validation and extension of time was refused.
2. An unsealed claim form is not a claim form within the CPR. Sending an unsealed judicial review claim form could not be authorised as service of the later, different planning statutory review claim. It did not communicate that valid statutory review proceedings had commenced or that originating process had been served under the authority of the court.
3. CPR 6.15 can, in principle, validate service of a sealed claim form at an incorrect place or by an incorrect method. The question is whether there is a good reason, assessed as an evaluative judgment on all the circumstances. The purpose of service includes communicating the contents of the sealed claim and notifying the defendant that proceedings have commenced.
4. There was no good reason to validate the asserted posting to the Marsham Street address. The correct service address had been stated in the claimant’s own pre-action letter and repeated by the court. The claimant had clear notice that service on the Secretary of State was to be by email to the designated GLD address. The failure to use that address was inexcusable.
5. The email of the sealed claim to the individual GLD lawyer after expiry of the deadline could not be validated, and the CPR 7.6(3) criteria were not met. The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps during the six-week period and had not acted promptly in applying for an extension. The same deficiencies defeated the fallback application for an extension under CPR 3.1(2)(a).
6. The strictness of the result was not a reason to grant relief. Planning statutory review claims require clarity, certainty and diligent compliance. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, including the previously summarily assessed £11,000.

First-instance planning statutory review proceedings. A Deputy High Court Judge had previously set aside the claim and refused an extension of time. The present court reconsidered the issues afresh and refused to discharge that order.