CA-2025-000771 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1347

Bellway’s appeal is advanced on three grounds. First, they say that, having found that the claim form was not served in time and that the claimants were not entitled to an extension of time, the judge should have found that this action could not proceed further against them. Secondly, they say that the judge was wrong to find that Bellway was required to file an AoS within the time set out in r.10.3 in circumstances where both the claim form and the particulars of claim were served outside the relevant period. Thirdly, they say the judge was wrong to hold that he could only find that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim in the event that Bellway had made a valid and timely application under Part 11 following the filing of an AoS.

The cross-appeal goes back a stage. The claimants argue that the judge was wrong to hold that they had not effected valid service of the claim form by DX by the stipulated date and time. They submit that, on the evidence, they had left the claim form out for collection by the DX by 4pm, and that that was sufficient to comply with the r.7.5. As Mr Sawtell rightly pointed out in his skeleton, if his cross-appeal was correct, it was unnecessary for the court of consider the three issues raised by the appeal itself. I therefore deal with the cross-appeal first.