Gloucestershire County Council, R (on the application of) v Keyway (Gloucester) Ltd.

For service of a statutory notice on a company under Local Government Act 1972, section 233, it is sufficient to leave the document at the company’s registered or principal office. Actual delivery into the hands of a director or company secretary is unnecessary. The statutory reference to service on a company secretary or clerk is permissive and does not displace the general methods of service. This differs from the separate scheme in section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires delivery to the secretary or clerk if personal delivery is used, unless the document is sent by post.

This was a prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated from the Justices for the County of Gloucester, sitting at Cheltenham. The Justices had dismissed an information alleging that the defendant company contravened a stop notice issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The preliminary issue was whether the stop notice had been served on the company. The planning authority had left copies at the company’s registered and principal offices, but neither document had been handed directly to a director or company secretary. The central question was whether leaving the document at either office satisfied section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972.

1. Appeal allowed. The Justices’ answer was wrong. It was sufficient for the planning authority to prove that a copy of the stop notice had been left at the company’s registered or principal office. It was unnecessary to prove delivery into the hands of a director or secretary.
2. Section 233(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1972 applies to natural and corporate persons. Section 233(4) confirms that “person” includes a body corporate and its secretary or clerk. Accordingly, a company may be served by posting the document to, leaving it at, or delivering it to the company at its registered or principal office.
3. Section 233(3), which provides for service on a company secretary or clerk, is permissive. It enables service on that person at an address other than the company’s registered or principal office; it does not make personal service on the secretary or clerk compulsory.
4. The criminal consequences of contravening a stop notice did not justify a strained interpretation. Companies are expected to make administrative arrangements for important documents left at their registered offices. Section 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985 reinforced that conclusion.
5. As an alternative and unnecessary observation, section 329(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains a different scheme. Service under that provision requires delivery to the company secretary or clerk at the registered or principal office, unless the document is sent by post.
6. The case was remitted to the Justices with the court’s answers so that the hearing could continue. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,759.91.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On the prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated, the court allowed the appeal, answered the Justices’ question in favour of the planning authority, and remitted the case for the hearing to continue.
• Justices for the County of Gloucester, sitting at Cheltenham: On 10 March 2003, the Justices dismissed the information after ruling that the stop notice had not been served on the defendant company.