Statutory challenges – the importance of serving all parties

Arun District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2026] EWHC 1172 (Admin)

The High Court’s decision in Arun District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government provides a clear and important restatement of the strict procedural requirements governing statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The case concerned a proposed residential development in Pagham, West Sussex. Arun District Council had refused planning permission, but on appeal a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State allowed the appeal and granted permission for the development. The Council subsequently sought to challenge that decision by bringing a statutory review claim.

While the Council acted promptly in issuing its claim within the six-week statutory period, difficulties arose in relation to service. Although the claim form was served on the Secretary of State in time, service on the developer defendants was defective. The Council attempted service via the developers’ planning consultant, who was not authorised to accept service, and valid service was only effected after the deadline had expired.

The Council applied for an extension of time, arguing that the developers did not intend to contest the proceedings and that no prejudice would arise. However, the Court rejected this submission and dismissed the claim. It held that compliance with the statutory time limit for service on all defendants is a strict jurisdictional requirement.

Crucially, the Court emphasised that a failure to serve all defendants within the prescribed period deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the claim at all, even where some parties have been properly served. A section 288 challenge was a single statutory claim, not a separate claim against different defendants. The fact that the unserved parties indicated they did not wish to participate was irrelevant.

The judgment reinforces a consistent line of authority that statutory review procedures in planning cases are to be applied rigorously. Claimants must demonstrate that they have taken “all reasonable steps” to effect service within the statutory period, and post-deadline steps cannot remedy earlier failures.

For practitioners and local planning authorities alike, the case serves as a stark reminder that procedural compliance is critical. Even where a challenge may have substantive merit, failure to adhere strictly to service requirements will be fatal to the claim.

How we can help

Ward Hadaway has a breadth of experience in dealing with a wide range of judicial review and statutory challenges whether from the perspective of the Claimant, Defendant, or an Interested Party.

If you have any questions, please contact Robert Glassford or Sam Burgess.