Butland v Powys County Council

For statutory service, an address specified by a person as the place for receiving notices may be treated as his proper address even if it is not his home or last known address. The communication must be construed in its full factual context. An instruction referring to future correspondence can satisfy the requirement where the surrounding history clearly shows that matters concerning notices of the relevant description are to be dealt with at that address. Where service is thereby effective on the date of posting, an appeal lodged outside the prescribed period is out of time and the magistrates have no jurisdiction to hear it.

Powys County Council served a noise abatement notice on 14 April 2005 at Woodland Park Shooting Ground, the business address operated by Mr Butland. Mr Butland received it on 16 April and appealed to the magistrates on 6 May. The magistrates held that the notice had been served at the proper address on 14 April and that the appeal was out of time.

On a case stated appeal, McCombe J held that Mr Butland’s letter requesting that future correspondence be sent to Woodland Park specified an address for correspondence, not for service of notices, and allowed the appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether, in the context of the parties’ history concerning noise complaints, the letter satisfied section 160(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from McCombe J and restored the magistrates’ decision that they had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Butland’s complaint.

1. Statutory framework. Section 160 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 permits service by delivery, leaving the notice at the person’s proper address, or sending it by post to that address. The person’s last known address is the default proper address. Under section 160(5), an alternative United Kingdom address specified as the address at which the person or someone on his behalf will accept notices of the same description is also treated as his proper address.
2. Construction of the communication. Whether an address has been specified for the purposes of section 160(5) depends on the whole factual context. The council was entitled to consider the earlier abatement notice served at Woodland Park without complaint, the correspondence about the noise issues, the fact that the business and relevant activity were located there, and Mr Butland’s instruction that future correspondence be sent to that address.
3. Application and consequence. In that context, the letter sufficiently indicated that matters relating to noise issues arising from the shooting ground were to be dealt with through Woodland Park. The council was therefore entitled to treat it as the proper address for service of the later notice. Service was effective on 14 April 2005, so the appeal lodged on 6 May was out of time and the magistrates correctly concluded that they lacked jurisdiction.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2007] EWCA Civ 1298: allowed the appeal and restored the magistrates’ decision.
2. High Court of Justice, Administrative Court — McCombe J, 15 March 2007: allowed the council’s appeal by way of case stated from the magistrates’ decision.
3. Magistrates’ court, Welshpool — 18 January 2006: held that service occurred at the proper address on 14 April 2005 and that the complaint was out of time.