Case Summary: To serve or not to serve?
ALEXANDER SHAW SUCCEEDS IN APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED IN DIVISIONAL COURT WHICH CLARIFIED THE LAW ON THE INTERPRETATION OF DEEMED SERVICE PROVISIONS IN s160 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990.
The firm was successful in representing Zoe Allen, in the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the District Judge in Ealing Magistrate’s Court.
The High Court held that a notice under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) served by a person aggrieved by a statutory nuisance need not be addressed to the ‘secretary or clerk’ of a body corporate in order for the deemed service provisions in EPA 1990, s160 to apply as the provisions are permissive rather than mandatory.
The court also held that notwithstanding the deemed service provisions in EPA 1990, s160, as the aggrieved person was able to prove that the notice had been received at the offices of the body corporate and signed for by a person about whom it was reasonable to infer had authority to receive post, then service had been validly effected.
Solicitor responsible: Tasneem Raza
Citation: Allen v London Borough of Ealing  EWHC 948 (Admin) (20 April 2021)
Related article: http://www.nexuschambers.com/news/andrew-locke-succeeds-in-appeal-by-way-of-case-stated-which-clarifies-the-law-on-the-interpretation-of-deemed-service-provisions-in-s160-of-the-environmental-protection-act-1990