Introduction

The case of Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Rogers ([2024] EWCA Civ 1554) addresses critical procedural aspects within the realm of planning statutory reviews under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("TCPA"). The dispute centers on whether the respondent successfully extended the time to serve a claim form following administrative delays by the court office. With prior decisions on similar issues, this appeal provides a pivotal examination of the application of CPR 7.6(3) and its impact on the jurisdiction of courts in handling planning statutory reviews.

The parties involved are the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ("the appellant") and Rogers ("the respondent"). The crux of the appeal lies in whether the respondent took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the statutory six-week period and acted promptly in seeking an extension of time.

Summary of the Judgment

Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge initially extended the time for service of the sealed claim form by attributing the delay to the Manchester Administrative Court Office's ("the court office") inefficiencies, thereby dismissing the appellant's application for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, upon appeal, the England and Wales Court of Appeal critically examined the respondent's actions against the standards set by CPR 7.6(3).

The appellate court concluded that the respondent had not taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the six-week deadline and had failed to act promptly in requesting an extension of time. Consequently, the court ruled that the appellant had no jurisdiction to proceed with the planning statutory review under section 288 of the TCPA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references Carr LJ in R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] and subsequent cases such as Halton Borough Council v Secretary of State [2023], Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State [2023], and others. These cases collectively reinforce the applicability of CPR 7.6 by analogy to planning statutory reviews, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural deadlines and the necessity of demonstrating reasonable steps taken to meet these deadlines.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning is grounded in the interpretation of CPR 7.6(3), which mandates that an appellant seeking an extension must prove two key criteria:

• They have taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the stipulated period.
• They acted promptly in applying for an extension once they became aware of the delay.

Applying this framework, the court scrutinized the respondent's actions and found significant lapses:

• The respondent's solicitors failed to clearly communicate the urgency and specific deadlines to the court office.
• There was a lack of proactive follow-up after the initial filing on 18 April.
• The application for an extension was delayed until nearly two months after the deadline.

The appellate court highlighted that administrative delays by the court office do not absolve the respondent from their responsibility to ensure timely service of the claim form. The respondent's inaction post-deadline further undermined their position.

Impact

This judgment sets a stringent precedent for future planning statutory reviews, underscoring the imperative for claimants to actively manage procedural requirements. It reinforces that reliance on court office efficiency is insufficient and that legal representatives must engage proactively to meet statutory deadlines. The decision also aligns the procedural rigor of planning statutory reviews with broader judicial review practices, promoting consistency and certainty in legal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CPR 7.6(3)

CPR 7.6(3) deals with applications to extend the time for serving a claim form beyond the originally stipulated deadline. To succeed, a claimant must demonstrate that:

• They have exhausted all reasonable efforts to meet the deadline.
• They promptly requested an extension once they recognized the inability to comply within the original timeframe.

This rule ensures that delays are not merely due to administrative oversights but are backed by diligent efforts by the claimant.

Planning Statutory Review under s.288 TCPA

A planning statutory review under section 288 of the TCPA allows individuals or entities to challenge certain decisions related to planning permissions or enforcement notices. This process is subject to strict time limits to ensure the finality and certainty of planning decisions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Rogers reinforces the critical importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in planning statutory reviews. It delineates clear expectations for claimants to actively manage and ensure the timely service of claim forms. Moreover, it underscores that administrative delays by court offices do not absolve claimants from their procedural responsibilities. This judgment serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting that proactive engagement and diligent follow-up are indispensable for maintaining the integrity and efficacy of legal proceedings in the planning context.

As a result, legal practitioners and parties involved in planning statutory reviews must prioritize meticulous adherence to procedural timelines and proactive communication with court offices to safeguard their cases against jurisdictional challenges based on delayed service.