Judgment has been handed down in Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House [2025] EWCA Civ 1347. Tim Calland represented Bellway Homes Ltd, the successful appellant.

The claimants were occupiers of a building constructed by Bellway, who alleged defects in its construction had exacerbated the consequences of an accidental fire there. The claimants served their claim outside the permitted time and applied to court for an order validating the late service. That order was refused but the judge refused to find that he had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He could not do so – he said – because Bellway had not acknowledged the invalid service and applied to challenge jurisdiction under CPR Part 11: he found that, in the absence of such an application, he could not decide whether he had jurisdiction to hear the claim. Instead, he had to treat the claim as valid and to direct Bellway to file a defence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant who has been invalidly served with a claim form is not obliged to apply to challenge jurisdiction under Part 11 if the claimant has itself brought the question before the court and, in this regard, there is no difference between claim forms served out of time and those served by the wrong method. The Court held that there was no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The Court commented that, when interpreting the CPR, it must be kept in mind that each procedural rule assumed that those preceding them had been validly complied with, as otherwise the CPR would be unmanageably long. That meant that, in this case, references to “service” in Parts 9 – 11 of the CPR were references to valid service that had been effected in accordance with the preceding rules.

The decisions below, [2024] EWHC 1579 (KB) and [2025] EWHC 772 (KB), were overturned.

Read the judgment in full: Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House [2025] EWCA Civ 1347