The decision in Coal Pension Properties Ltd v Mace Living Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC), handed down on the 26th of May 2026, provides a clear reminder that the rules on serving a Claim Form are fundamental to litigation.
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) confirmed that these requirements are not mere technicalities but essential steps that determine whether a court has jurisdiction at all.
In this case, despite the claim being worth over £100 million, the Court held that the Claim Form had not been validly served in time. As a result, the claim could not proceed.
In this article, Capital lawyers Iman Feroz and Tim Constable explain how the decision was reached and what implications it has for running a high-quality dispute matter.
Background of the issue
The dispute arose from a long-running construction project completed in 2011. The Claim Form was issued in December 2021, and the parties agreed several extensions for service, with a final deadline of the 2nd of February 2026.
On that final day, at 16:46, the claimant attempted to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim by email to Clyde & Co LLP, the defendants’ solicitors.
However, the claimant had not confirmed whether Clyde & Co were authorised to accept service, or whether they had agreed to accept service by email. Clyde & Co challenged the validity of service, and the dispute came before the TCC.
Authority to accept service
The Court held that service was invalid because Clyde & Co had not been expressly authorised to accept service on behalf of the defendants.
The claimant argued that earlier communications, in particular a draft application form relating to extensions of time, showed that Clyde & Co had such authority. The Court rejected that argument. It made clear that authority to accept service must be clearly and expressly given in writing and cannot be inferred from general correspondence or case management discussions.
Relying on earlier authorities such as Barton v Wright Hassall and LSREF 3 Tiger Falkirk v Paragon, the Court stressed that there must be absolute clarity on this issue. Simply put, if a solicitor has not said they can accept service, the claimant must assume they cannot.
Electronic service
In this matter the claimant also relied on email service. However, this failed to meet the requirements of CPR 6.3 and Practice Direction 6A.
Although Clyde & Co had previously used a Covid-era email footer suggesting that documents could be served by email, this wording was temporary, and had already been replaced.
The updated position required agreement with the relevant solicitor and use of a specified email address.
The claimant did not comply with these requirements. They had not obtained express consent to email service, had not checked any limitations, and had not used the correct address. The Court confirmed that parties are entitled to change their position on electronic service and that earlier indications do not remain valid indefinitely.
CPR 6.15: attempt to validate service
The claimant asked the Court to retrospectively validate service under CPR 6.15, but this was refused.
In reaching that decision, the Court focused on three points:
- First, the claimant had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the rules, most notably by failing to check whether Clyde & Co could accept service.
- Second, although the defendants were aware of the claim, that alone was not enough to justify validating defective service.
- Third, allowing the claim to proceed would have deprived the defendants of a limitation defence, which weighed heavily against the claimant.
The Court also noted that the claimant might still pursue aspects of its case under the Defective Premises Act 1972, meaning the refusal of relief did not necessarily cause it significant unfairness.
Outcome
Because the Claim Form had not been validly served within its period of validity, the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The defendants were therefore successful in their application.
Key takeaways
This judgment highlights the importance of treating service as a distinct and critical step in litigation. Even in complex, high-value disputes, with extensive prior correspondence, the courts will insist on strict compliance with the rules.
Practically, the case underlines three simple but essential points:
- always confirm in writing whether a solicitor is authorised to accept service,
- never assume that email service is acceptable without clear agreement, and
- avoid leaving service until the eleventh hour, as any error may be impossible to correct.
Iman is a Trainee Solicitor in our Commercial Disputes team. Iman completed her LLB at the University of Reading.... Read More
Tim Constable is a partner in our Commercial Disputes team and has over 30 years’ experience in domestic and international commercial disputes. Tim represents clients in the financial, professio... Read More
