What happens when a claim form is served late—does the claim automatically expire, or must defendants actively challenge service? This "important and novel point of law" was considered by the High Court in a January 2025 decision (recently published).[1] In that ruling, Master Dagnall rejected the contention that late service alone renders a claim "dead" or permanently "in limbo."

What are the implications of this decision for both claimants and defendants when facing missed service deadlines?

We summarise below the key takeaways from the decision, and why defendants should not simply ignore an out-of-time claim form but must file a timely acknowledgment of service and make an application under CPR Part 11 within the relevant time limits to challenge jurisdiction.

Background

  • CPR 7.5 Service Deadline: Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), proceedings start when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant, and the date of issue is the date entered on the form by the court. The next step, procedurally, is for the claim form to be served on the defendant. This must ordinarily be done within four months from the date of issue of the claim form (for claims served within the jurisdiction), or six months for claims served out of the jurisdiction, failing which an extension or validation order is typically required.
  • Late Yet Valid Method: In this instance, the Claimant served the claim form outside the CPR 7.5 time limit set out above. The claim form was however served by document exchange (DX), which is a valid method in accordance with the CPR.
  • This led to a dispute between the parties as to whether that delay nullified the claim form, leaving it "dead or in limbo" – or whether the defendant was required to actively challenge out-of-time service by acknowledging and applying to set aside the form under CPR 11?

The Parties' Positions

The Defendant's Case:

Following service of the claim form, the Defendant had not taken any steps to acknowledge service, or to dispute the court's jurisdiction. It cited a number of authorities which it claimed justified this approach, on the premise that service out of time is effectively as invalid as an impermissible service method. Hence, it argued that the claim form existed in a "ghostly" or "limbo" state, requiring a court order (extension or validation) before the defendant was obliged to do anything.

The Defendant further contended that no judgment could be entered, and no requirement to file an acknowledgment of service arose, because the court had not validated the out-of-time service.

The Claimant's Case:

The Claimant, by contrast, argued that the authorities confirmed that late service—if effected by a valid method—is still service, thus triggering the usual timeline under CPR 10.3 for acknowledging service.

Consequently, the Claimant argued that out-of-time service does not automatically nullify the claim. Rather, it was open to the defendant to file an acknowledgment of service and apply under CPR Part 11 within 14 days if they wished to dispute the court's jurisdiction.

High Court Decision

The Claim Form Is Not Automatically 'Dead'

Master Dagnall rejected the notion that late service leaves a claim form permanently in limbo, holding that:

"The taking of an appropriate service step or serving outside this jurisdiction out of time does not render the claim form 'dead' or 'in limbo' but has the effects both that the subsequent time limits run and that the claim can proceed unless set aside under a CPR11 application made in time following the filing of an acknowledgement of service within time…"

He noted four reasons for this construction:

  1. It best accords with the wording of the CPR.
  2. It aligns with the statutory purpose of the CPR service regime.
  3. It avoids uncertainty and unreasonable outcomes.
  4. It is supported by authority and consistent with modern appellate approaches.

Master Dagnall also rejected the Defendant's contention that the clock never starts running if service is out of time, explaining that:

"Defective, or even no, service does not render a Claim or the Claim Form a nullity … The Claim continues in existence unless and until the Court makes an order declining or refusing to exercise jurisdiction."

Thus, once the claim form and particulars are served (even if late), the usual deadlines for acknowledgement under CPR 10 apply. The defendant must:

  • Acknowledge service promptly under CPR 10.3, and then decide quickly whether to:
    • Challenge jurisdiction via CPR 11, or
    • Risk being deemed to accept the court's jurisdiction if no challenge is filed on time.

Key Takeaways

This decision—described by Master Dagnall as both "important" and "novel"—clarifies that defendants cannot rely on out-of-time service as an automatic jurisdictional bar. While timely service should obviously be preferred, out-of-time service by a valid method remains legally consequential – and defendants should take positive steps to challenge the court's jurisdiction under CPR 11 if they wish to prevent the matter from proceeding.

Indeed, in this case the Defendant had been invited by the court to correct the situation on three occasions but had failed to do so. This proved to be a risky course of action as the court ultimately held that the defendant was unable to challenge jurisdiction, and the claim will now proceed.

Some practical pointers for defendants who may find themselves in similar circumstances therefore include:

  • Immediate Action Required: a claim form served outside the CPR 7.5 deadline should not simply be ignored. To contest it, you must file an Acknowledgment of Service on time and lodge a CPR 11 application (within 14 days thereafter) if you believe the court lacks or should not exercise jurisdiction.
  • No Automatic Nullity: Absent a successful CPR 11 application, the court may well treat a late-served claim form as fully capable of proceeding.

If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact Daniel Wood or a member of the team.

Footnote

[1] [2025] EWHC 772 (KB)