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

The court considered whether a stop notice issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been validly served on a limited company. It held that service in accordance with section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 (by leaving the document at the company's registered or principal office) is sufficient to effect service on a company and it is not necessary to prove actual delivery into the hands of a director or the company secretary. The court further explained that, by contrast, section 329(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires delivery to the company secretary or clerk at the registered or principal office if reliance is placed on that provision, although posting by registered or recorded delivery is an alternative. Relevant statutory provisions considered included sections 172, 173, 183, 184 and 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Background and parties: The appellant, Gloucestershire County Council, prosecuted Keyway (Gloucester) Limited for allegedly contravening a stop notice issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of tipping/importing waste at a site. The Justices at Cheltenham dismissed the information on the preliminary ground that the stop notice had not been served on the company. The case was stated to the High Court on the question whether service on a limited company could be proved by leaving the stop notice at the company's registered or principal office.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: This was a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated asking the High Court to answer whether service of the stop notice on a limited company could be proved by leaving the document at the registered or principal office under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 or whether it was necessary to prove delivery into the hands of a director or the company secretary.

Issues framed:

• Whether the word "person" in section 233(2) of the 1972 Act includes corporate bodies so that leaving a document at a company's registered or principal office effects service on the company;
• whether, alternatively, to effect service under section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it was necessary to deliver the document to the secretary or clerk of the company rather than merely leaving it at the office;
• the interaction of these service provisions with the criminal offence in section 187 and the defence in section 187(3).

Court's reasoning and findings: The judge concluded that "person" in section 233 includes corporate bodies and that the methods of service in subsection (2) apply to companies; consequently leaving the stop notice at the registered and principal offices sufficed to effect service. The court rejected an interpretation that would require actual hand-delivery to a director or the company secretary in all circumstances, observing that subsection (3) of section 233 provides additional means (including giving to the secretary or clerk) but does not negate the simpler methods. The judge noted that section 329 of the 1990 Act should be read to require delivery to the secretary/clerk if reliance is placed upon it for service on a company, though posting is an explicit alternative. The court emphasised that the second limb of the statutory defence (that the accused did not and could not reasonably have known of the stop notice) had not been decided by the Justices and remained open.

Disposition and practical note: The appeal was allowed; the High Court answered the question in the Justices' favour, remitted the case for further proceedings before the Justices and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant's costs as assessed. The court observed that companies are expected to arrange that documents left at their registered or principal office will be brought to the attention of the appropriate officers.

Appeal allowed. The High Court held that service of a stop notice on a limited company may be effected by leaving a copy at the company's registered or principal office under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and it is not necessary to prove delivery into the hands of a director or the company secretary. The court further explained that, where reliance is placed upon section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, service on a company requires delivery to the company secretary or clerk at the registered or principal office (unless sent by post), and therefore the magistrates' conclusion that there had been no service was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Justices to proceed. Costs were awarded to the claimant.

Prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated from the Justices for the County of Gloucester sitting at Cheltenham (decision dated 10 March 2003) where the Justices dismissed the information on the ground that the stop notice had not been served on the company. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Justices to continue the hearing.