Simon Bain Building Services Limited v Jenna Cardone & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2916 (Ch)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
27 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)
High Court
Two construction companies had a disagreement. One company filed paperwork late, and tried to get out of court by claiming the other company didn't follow the rules. The judge said both companies messed up, but the late company had to pay most of the legal costs. The late company wasn't allowed to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Clarion Housing Association Ltd (Claimant) and Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd (Defendant) entered into three building contracts in 2018.
- •In 2022, the Claimant alleged electrical defects and issued proceedings.
- •A six-month stay was agreed in June 2022 to allow for discussions and potential rectification works.
- •The Claimant served the claim form and particulars of claim on December 9, 2022, during the stay.
- •The Defendant's acknowledgement of service was filed late.
- •The Defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions is governed by the three-stage test in Denton v T H White Ltd.
Denton v T H White Ltd
A stay does not nullify steps taken during its currency; deadlines expiring during a stay are extended.
Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) Ltd; Arkin v Marshall
Service on a limited company is valid if delivered to its registered office, even with minor addressing errors.
CPR rule 7.5
Part 11 challenges to jurisdiction must be made within 14 days of service of the acknowledgement of service.
CPR rule 11.2
Case management decisions are generally not interfered with on appeal unless there is a flaw, error of principle, or error of law.
General principle of appellate review
Outcomes
Defendant's application for relief from sanctions for late filing of acknowledgement of service refused.
The delay was due to the Defendant's failure to secure legal representation promptly, and the application was used to challenge the Claimant's actions. The court found the reason unconvincing and noted the prejudice it would cause the claimant.
Defendant's Part 11 challenge to jurisdiction dismissed.
The acknowledgement of service was invalid due to lateness; the claim form and particulars of claim were validly served on December 9, 2022 despite the stay; and there were no valid grounds for challenging jurisdiction.
Claimant's application unnecessary; claim form and particulars of claim deemed served in time.
Service was valid on December 9, 2022. The court found no procedural defects requiring remedy.
Defendant ordered to pay 75% of Claimant's costs for both applications.
The Claimant was the successful party, but their application was unnecessary. The Court considered both parties' conduct.
Permission to appeal refused.
The grounds of appeal lacked merit and did not have a real prospect of success.
Similar Cases
The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1579 (KB)
Safeera Akram v Academy Doors and Windows Ltd
[2023] EWHC 1653 (KB)
ETM Contractors Limited, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council
[2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin)
Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 1461