Court of Appeal rules claim left for DX courier in office reception did not meet legal service rules
The Court of Appeal has ruled that leaving a claim form in a solicitor’s reception area for collection by a courier does not constitute valid service under the Civil Procedure Rules.
The case, Bellway Homes Limited v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House, arose from a dispute involving residents of a Barking apartment block damaged by fire. The claimants, represented by London firm Edwards Duthie Shamash (EDS), had issued proceedings against Bellway Homes, the building’s developer and constructor, alleging personal injury, property damage and financial loss.
At first instance, Master Dagnall found that the claimants had failed to demonstrate that the claim form was served by the required deadline of 4pm on 21 April 2023, as prescribed by Civil Procedure Rule 7.5. The claimants appealed, arguing that the trial judge had wrongly concluded that service had not taken place in time.
Embed from Getty Images
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the solicitors’ actions fell short of what the rules require for proper service.
Lord Justice Coulson, giving the lead judgment, said the evidence showed that EDS had taken a “rather casual” approach to the critical deadline. He noted that correspondence from the two months leading up to 21 April showed “little if anything” had been done to ensure compliance.
On the afternoon of the deadline, between 3.49pm and shortly after 4pm, EDS attempted to send the claim form by fax several times, but each transmission failed. Following the failed attempts, the claim form and accompanying documents were placed in a designated area of the firm’s reception for collection by the DX courier service.
Counsel for the claimants, David Satwell, argued that the court should infer that the claim form was left out for DX collection before 4pm, and that this action satisfied the service requirement.
Lord Justice Coulson rejected that argument, stating there was no basis for such an inference. He pointed out that the fax transmissions were still being attempted after 4pm, making it unlikely that the same documents had been made available for collection beforehand.
“The evidence points firmly the other way,” he said. “The claim form and other documents were the subject of frantic faxing between around 3.40pm and at least 4.03pm. Unless there were duplicate copies, if the claim form was still being faxed after 4pm, it could not have been simultaneously out for collection by the DX.”
The judge went further, clarifying that even if the document had been left for collection before 4pm, this would still not satisfy the rule governing service. He held that under CPR 7.5, the document must actually be “left with” the DX service, meaning it must pass into the possession of the delivery company itself before the deadline expires.
“In my view, that requires an act of transmission by the claimants: in essence, the passing on of the document from the solicitor into the possession of the DX service,” Coulson said. “You do not leave a document with the DX by having it in your reception for their collection at some point in the future.”
The decision reinforces the strict interpretation of procedural deadlines under the Civil Procedure Rules and serves as a warning to solicitors that leaving documents for later collection does not meet the legal standard for service.
The Court’s ruling leaves the claimants unable to rely on the attempted delivery, confirming Master Dagnall’s earlier finding that no valid service took place before the deadline.
The judgment underscores the need for precision and diligence in serving court documents and highlights the risks of relying on courier or fax methods without ensuring immediate proof of transmission or receipt.