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

If a defendant acknowledges service without making an application under CPR 11(1) for an order declaring that the court has no jurisdiction (or should not exercise jurisdiction) to try the case, that is taken to be a prima facie acceptance of jurisdiction: see Hoddinott at [22] – [27] and Pitalia at [33].

However, even then, if it is plain that jurisdiction is in issue then, depending on the surrounding circumstances, the failure to tick the relevant box on the AoS form may not be fatal: see Pitalia at [34].

Neither Hoddinott nor Pitalia are authority for the proposition that, if the defendant denies there has been any effective service and has not served an AoS, the defendant must still use Part 11 to challenge the effectiveness of the service: see Hand Held at [79].

Where a court has concluded that a claim form has not been served within time and no extension of time can be granted, a defendant is not obliged to file an AoS: see Shiblaq, Dubai Financial Group and Robertson.

The CPR operates on the basis that the defendant’s obligation under Parts 9 and 11 are only triggered by the valid service of the claim form: see Robertson at [70]. If a claim form has not been validly served and an extension of time is refused then, if the defendant does not accept the court’s jurisdiction, the proceedings that are the subject of the claim form cannot be pursued against that defendant: see Robertson at [69] – [77].

The reason that cases such as Hoddinott and Koro stress the importance of the defendant making an application under Part 11 is because such an application makes plain to everyone that the defendant is taking a service - and therefore a jurisdiction - point. But such an application is unnecessary if the claimant has already unsuccessfully raised with the court the question of service, and therefore jurisdiction: see Robertson at [73].