Anonymised Summary of the Court of Appeal Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns disputes about whether the Plaintiff validly filed and served a claim form by the date and time set out in a prior court order, and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time. The matter arose from a serious fire at The Building on 9 June 2019. The Plaintiff comprised occupiers of flats in that building who issued claims for personal injury, physical damage and economic loss.

The claim form was issued on 6 June 2022. The parties had agreed an extended deadline for filing and serving the claim form and particulars of claim to 4pm on 21 April 2023, an agreement confirmed by a court order dated 1 November 2022. The Plaintiff's solicitors were Company C. The first defendant (the primary defendant in this appeal) is referred to as Company A. Company D and Company E acted as solicitors for Company A and the second defendant respectively.

On 21 April 2023 the Plaintiff's solicitors attempted to serve the claim form by several methods (fax, electronic transmission, and by using a document delivery provider known as DX). The first-instance judge (Judge Dagnall) found that service had not been effected in accordance with the November order and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time. The Plaintiff applied on 28 April 2023 for a declaration that the claim form had been served, alternatively for relief from sanctions and/or an extension of time; that application led to the first-instance judgment dated 25 June 2024.

Following factual findings about events in the Plaintiff's offices on 21 April 2023 (including failed fax transmissions and the placement of documents in reception for DX collection), the first-instance judge concluded that (i) service by fax had not been validly effected, (ii) service by DX had not been effected in time because collection occurred after 4pm, and (iii) no agreement had extended the time for service to 8 June 2023. The judge therefore refused the declaratory relief, refused relief from sanctions and declined to permit continuation against Company A on the alternative procedural basis that Company A had failed to file an acknowledgment of service (AoS) or make a Part 11 application within the required time.

The Appellant (Company A) appealed on three grounds: (1) once the claim form was found not to have been served in time and an extension refused, the action could not proceed against Company A; (2) the judge was wrong to find that Company A was required to file an AoS when the claim form and particulars had been served late; and (3) the judge was wrong to say that he could only find lack of jurisdiction if Company A had made a Part 11 application after filing an AoS. The Plaintiff cross-appealed, contending that the judge was wrong to find that DX service had not been effected by 4pm on 21 April 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Was the claim form validly served in accordance with the November 2022 order (i.e. by 4pm on 21 April 2023)?
2. If the claim form was not validly served in time, were the Plaintiff entitled to an extension of time or relief from sanctions?
3. If service was invalid or late, what procedural obligations (if any) did that impose on the defendant(s): specifically, was Company A obliged to file an acknowledgment of service (AoS) or to make an application under CPR Part 11 to challenge jurisdiction?
4. Whether the earlier Court of Appeal authority (Precedent A) governed the outcome of this appeal and, if so, whether it could be distinguished on its facts.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that time for service had effectively been extended by agreement to 8 June 2023.
• The Plaintiff argued that service had been effected by DX because the claim form was left out for collection by the DX courier before 4pm on 21 April 2023, which, they submitted, satisfied CPR 7.5.
• Alternatively, the Plaintiff argued that even if service was late, the defendant's subsequent conduct (failure to file an AoS and/or to make a Part 11 application) meant the proceedings could continue against Company A.

Company A's (Appellant's) Arguments

• Company A contended that the judge should have held that, having found the claim form was not served in time and refusing an extension, the proceedings could not proceed against Company A.
• Company A argued that it was not required to file an AoS in the circumstances where the claim form and particulars had been served outside the relevant period.
• Company A submitted that the judge was wrong to treat the court as having jurisdiction only if Company A had filed an AoS and then made a Part 11 application within the prescribed time.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Precedent A ([2025] EWCA Civ 1262)	Held that, where a claimant has raised the validity of service promptly and the defendant opposes that application, the defendant is not obliged to file an AoS or make a Part 11 application separately; Parts 9–11 presuppose valid service.	The court treated Precedent A as directly applicable and binding; it relied on it to conclude that Company A was not obliged to file an AoS or to issue a Part 11 application where the Plaintiff had already brought the service/jurisdiction point before the court promptly.
Precedent B ([2018] UKSC 12)	Clarified that relief from sanctions under r.3.9/r.3.10 does not remedy failure to comply with jurisdictional time limits where r.7.6 is the relevant remedy (extension of time).	The court accepted this principle and applied it to conclude that the only route to rectify failure to serve in time was r.7.6 (extension of time); relief under r.3.9/r.3.10 was irrelevant to cure jurisdictional non-compliance.
Precedent K (R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care) ([2022] EWCA Civ 355)	Support for the proposition that relief from sanctions does not override the specific jurisdictional regime and that rule-based remedies must be observed.	Used alongside Precedent B to reinforce that relief from sanctions could not substitute for an extension under r.7.6 where service was out of time.
Precedent C (Shiblaq v Sadikoglu) ([2004] EWHC 1890)	Authority indicating that a defendant should not be compelled to invoke Part 11 where there has been no valid service and that default judgment in such a context would be illogical or unfair.	The court cited this authority to support the conclusion that a defendant is not obliged to proceed as if served when service has not been properly effected.
Precedent D (Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes) ([2007] EWCA Civ 1203; [2008] 1 WLR 806)	Holds that if a defendant files an AoS and does not make a Part 11 application within 14 days, CPR 11(5) treats the defendant as having accepted the court's jurisdiction in that sense.	The court recognised Hoddinott as authority for the limited proposition that an AoS, without a timely Part 11 application, leads to a presumption of acceptance; but distinguished it because Hoddinott deals with cases where an AoS has been filed.
Precedent E (Dubai Financial Group LLC v National Private Air Transport Services Co Ltd) ([2016] EWCA Civ 71)	Addresses the position where original service was invalid but later retrospectively validated and whether time for AoS had begun to run.	Cited to support the proposition that where service has not occurred in accordance with law, the defendant may have no obligation to take immediate procedural steps and time for AoS may not have begun to run.
Precedent F (Pitalia & Anr v NHS England) ([2023] EWCA Civ 657)	Demonstrates that failure to tick a jurisdiction box on AoS may not be fatal where surrounding material shows jurisdiction was always in issue; procedural rigour for defendants may be relaxed in the context of service errors.	The court used Pitalia to show that in some cases, failures on AoS forms do not preclude jurisdictional challenge if it is clear from the context that jurisdiction was disputed.
Precedent G (Hand Held Products Inc & Anr v Zebra Technologies Europe Limited & Anr) ([2022] EWHC 640 (Ch))	Considered obiter whether a defendant who denies any effective service is nevertheless required to use Part 11 to challenge effectiveness; cast doubt on such an inflexible requirement.	The court relied on Hand Held to support the proposition that Hoddinott does not necessarily extend to cases where no AoS has been filed at all.
Precedent H (R (Koro) v County Court at Central London) ([2024] EWCA 94)	Confirmed that Part 11 is the appropriate procedure to dispute jurisdiction where a defendant seeks to raise the point at an interlocutory hearing that was not intended to decide jurisdiction, and that the defendant cannot hijack unrelated hearings.	The court distinguished Koro on its facts because in that case the jurisdiction point was raised for the first time by the defendant late in the proceedings; here the jurisdiction/service point had been brought immediately by the Plaintiff.
Precedent I (Vinos v Marks and Spencer PLC) ([2001] 3 All ER 784)	Illustrates the point that distinctions between time-based defaults and method-based defects are often not productive; procedural defaults are frequently interrelated.	Used to support the court's view that it is artificial to distinguish strictly between a wrong method of service and late service in assessing consequences.
Precedent J (Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc) ([2022] EWCA Civ 14; [2022] 1 WLR 1541)	Reinforces that distinctions between different types of procedural default (method v time) are often unhelpful and encourages practical assessment.	Applied to support the court's rejection of attempts to draw a firm legal distinction between wrong method and late service for present purposes.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court (Judge Coulson giving the lead judgment, with Judges Phillips and Andrews concurring) approached the appeal in two stages: first addressing the cross-appeal (challenge by the Plaintiff that DX service had been effected by 4pm on 21 April 2023), and then the Appellant's (Company A's) appeal questions concerning the consequences of defective or late service.

On the cross-appeal, the court accepted the first-instance judge's factual findings that the only evidence as to DX service was that the claim form had been left in reception for collection by the DX courier and that collection would occur after office hours (i.e. after 4pm). The court rejected the Plaintiff's contention that the court should infer that collection occurred by 4pm. The court emphasised that the contemporaneous evidence showed ongoing fax attempts between about 3.40pm and at least 4.03pm and that there was no evidence of duplicate copies having been left for simultaneous collection. On the facts, the Plaintiff had not shown on the balance of probabilities that the necessary steps for DX service under CPR 7.5 had been completed by 4pm.

As a matter of law, the court concluded that leaving documents in reception "for collection" did not amount to leaving them "with" the DX service or to delivery into the possession of the DX service within the meaning of r.7.5. The court explained several legal reasons for this conclusion:

• Valid DX service requires transmission into the possession of the DX provider — an act of handing over or delivering to the service provider — not merely placing material in a reception area for later collection.
• Methods listed in r.7.5 (posting, leaving with, delivering to, collection by) involve positive and irrevocable acts; materials left at a receptionist's desk can be retrieved and amended and therefore do not fit that character.
• Leaving for collection is conceptually distinct from "left with" or "collected by" and does not satisfy the rule.
• The operational effect of DX is to provide next-business-day delivery; to achieve next-business-day delivery for service by 4pm on a given day, documents normally had to be placed with DX ahead of that day.

Having dismissed the cross-appeal, the court turned to the Appellant's grounds. The court analysed relevant CPR provisions (Parts 7, 9, 10 and 11) and considered the authorities on the interplay between defective service and a defendant's obligations. The court distilled principles from the authorities (including Precedent A, Precedent C, Precedent D, Precedent E, Precedent F, Precedent G and others) and emphasised the following analytical points:

• The defendant's obligations under Parts 9–11 presuppose that the claim form has been validly served; the rules operate sequentially and assume prior compliance by the claimant (as in Precedent A).
• Where the claimant has not validly served the claim form and an extension is refused, a defendant is not obliged to file an AoS or to make a Part 11 application in order to preserve a jurisdictional point (supported by Precedent C, Precedent E and Precedent A).
• Hoddinott (Precedent D) is confined to cases where a defendant has filed an AoS and failed to make a Part 11 application within 14 days; it does not compel a defendant who has not been validly served to file an AoS in order to preserve jurisdictional arguments.
• Practical and common-sense considerations support the view that a claimant should not obtain relief from its own default (invalid or late service) by relying on a defendant's failure to take procedural steps that only make sense if valid service has occurred.

Applying these principles to the present facts, and following Precedent A which the court regarded as binding, the court concluded that because the Plaintiff had promptly raised the validity of service before the first-instance judge and had unsuccessfully sought an extension, Company A had no obligation subsequently to file an AoS or to issue a Part 11 application simply to preserve a jurisdictional point. Accordingly, the first-instance judge erred in concluding that Company A was required to have filed an AoS and/or made a Part 11 application.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff's cross-appeal and allowed the appeal by Company A; the court set aside the relevant orders of the first-instance judge.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The court held that (i) the claim form had not been validly served in accordance with the November 2022 order and (ii) the Plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time. As a result, the proceedings cannot be pursued further against Company A on the basis of the defective service.
• Procedural obligations: A defendant is not obliged to file an acknowledgment of service or to make a Part 11 application where a claimant has not validly served the claim form and has already raised the service/jurisdiction issue promptly before the court and been refused relief by the court. In such circumstances a separate Part 11 application would be duplicative and unnecessary.
• Precedential note: The court treated its decision as applying and following existing authorities (notably Precedent A) rather than as establishing a novel principle. The judgment emphasises practical, sequential operation of the CPR and that Part 9–11 obligations presuppose valid service under Parts 6–7.

Disposition: The appeal was allowed; the cross-appeal was dismissed; the orders of the first-instance judge that had been founded on the misapprehension that Company A was required to file an AoS and/or make a Part 11 application were set aside.

Panel

Lead judgment by Judge Coulson; concurring judgments by Judge Phillips and Judge Andrews.

---

Notes on anonymisation and scope: This summary is strictly derived from the provided opinion. All personal names, solicitors' firms and specific location details have been anonymised consistently. No information not contained in the provided opinion has been added.