The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1579 (KB)
Dr Sanjay Pitalia & Anor v NHS England
9 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 657
Court of Appeal
A company was sued, and the paperwork was sent late. They said they wanted to challenge the lawsuit but didn't use the exact right form. The court said that because it was clear what they meant, it was okay, and the lawsuit could continue.
Key Facts
- •Claim form served after the four-month service deadline (CPR 7.5).
- •Defendant acknowledged service but did not explicitly challenge jurisdiction under CPR 11 within 14 days.
- •Defendant subsequently applied to strike out the claim.
- •Lower courts struck out the claim for non-compliance with CPR 7.5.
- •Appeal concerned whether the defendant's failure to use CPR 11 procedure meant they accepted jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Claim form must be served within four months of issue (CPR 7.5).
CPR 7.5(1)
Procedure for disputing jurisdiction (CPR 11): Failure to apply within 14 days of acknowledging service is treated as acceptance of jurisdiction.
CPR 11(5)
Court's general power to rectify procedural errors (CPR 3.10).
CPR 3.10
Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes: Failure to challenge jurisdiction under CPR 11 after acknowledging service implies acceptance of jurisdiction.
Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes [2008] 1 WLR 806
Vinos v Marks & Spencer: CPR 3.10 cannot override express prohibitions in other rules.
Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784
Barton v Wright Hassall: Timely and lawful service of originating process is paramount.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119
Steele v Mooney: Distinction between making an application with an error and failing to make an application at all.
Steele v Mooney [2005] 1 WLR 2819
Denton v TH White: Relief from sanctions considered, balancing factors of seriousness, significance, and the wider context.
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 3296
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court held that the defendant's application to strike out, while not explicitly under CPR 11, could be rectified under CPR 3.10 to be treated as a CPR 11 application. This was because the defendant's intention to challenge jurisdiction was clear from their actions, despite the technical error. The court distinguished this from cases where the application is completely absent, and emphasized the importance of timely service of originating process.