In a recent case the Court decided that the Defendant could not effectively grant the Court jurisdiction, by submitting a defence and failing to challenge the Court's jurisdiction from the outset, see https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2025/02/19/cpr-11-and-the-principles-in-hoddinott-do-not-apply-in-a-case-where-the-court-has-no-jurisdiction-at-all-an-interesting-judgment/.
As can be seen from this case - https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1203.html&query=(hoddinott) - the word 'jurisdiction' can have multiple meanings.
It can refer to the Court not having jurisdiction because the Claim Form has not been served within the time limits set by the Civil Procedural Rules. In which case the Defendant can waive their right to challenge the Court's power to continue with the case by not challenging jurisdiction as set out in part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
In the recent case however, the Court had no jurisdiction pursuant to statute and this remained the case, irrespective of whether a challenge had been made as per part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules or whether the Defendant had submitted a Defence thereby implicitly accepting the Court's jurisdiction.
The distinction between the two types of jurisdictional limitation are explained below in the recent judgment:
"It cannot be that a party can waive the issue of jurisdiction where the County Court has no such jurisdiction. This court is an inferior court. Parliament has conferred jurisdiction on the County Court in respect of some but not all parts of the Equality Act. The defendant cannot be said to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court if the court has no such jurisdiction at all. The procedural rules of CPR 11 cannot give the claimant a jurisdiction that does not as a matter of law exist. If as a matter of statute, this court cannot hear a claim, I do not understand CPR 11 to be conferring jurisdiction on the parties. CPR 11 is addressing situations where there are procedural matters that could mean the court in the particular circumstances has no jurisdiction as the claimant has failed to act in a certain manner; however, aside from the procedural matters, the court has jurisdiction. "
An example of a jurisdictional challenge that must be made as per Part 11 to avoid the Defendant conferring jurisdiction on the Court, would be a challenge based on a contractual agreement to arbitrate instead of litigate.
Comments