Case Summary: To serve or not to serve?
Updated: May 20, 2021
Alexander Shaw succeeds in appeal by way of case stated in the Divisional Court, which clarified whether the service requirements of sections 160(2) and 160(3) were permissive or mandatory. The court held that section 160 set out permitted methods of service of notice or documents, but did not provide an exhaustive list of the only methods of effective service.
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