JJB Sports Plc, R (on the application of) v Telford & Wrekin Borough Council

Failure to comply with a statutory requirement expressed in mandatory terms does not automatically invalidate the resulting act. The court must examine the consequences of non-compliance and determine objectively whether Parliament intended invalidity. In assessing a late demand for national non-domestic rates, relevant considerations included the statutory scheme, the nature of the time requirement and any prejudice to the ratepayer. A billing authority’s internal administrative difficulties cannot determine a citizen’s liability. In the absence of prejudice, a late demand remained enforceable. Serious non-compliance causing prejudice might justify refusal of a liability order or judicial review.

This was a case stated appeal from a liability order made by a district judge in respect of national non-domestic rates. The authority had initially served a combined demand for two financial years, contrary to the requirement for separate notices. After that demand was challenged, it served separate notices, but 56 days later than was practicable. The district judge found a breach of Regulation 5 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, but held that the ratepayer remained liable because no prejudice had been shown.

The issue was whether the authority could enforce the demand despite the late service and the circumstances in which the delay occurred.

1. Appeal dismissed. The authority was entitled to seek a liability order for £41,477.40. The question stated by the district judge was answered in the affirmative, and costs of £5,213 were awarded to the authority.
2. The statutory obligation to serve a demand notice “on or as soon as practicable” was mandatory. The authority had breached it by delaying service while using multi-year bills which it knew did not comply with the Regulations.
3. Following R v Soneji and Another [2006] 1 AC 340, the correct approach was to focus on the consequences of non-compliance and ask whether Parliament intended total invalidity. The mandatory character of the obligation did not itself answer that question.
4. The time requirement was governed by practicability, rather than a fixed period. It would be unsatisfactory for liability to depend on the rating authority’s internal manpower, funding or organisation, matters of which the ratepayer would ordinarily be unaware.
5. The ratepayer had known the amount demanded and alleged no prejudice from the late service. The provisions preserving liability where a notice omitted prescribed information through mistake supported the conclusion that Parliament did not intend absence of information, without more, to extinguish liability.
6. The earlier defective multi-year notices could not themselves be relied upon, but that did not invalidate the later notices merely because they were late. A serious breach causing prejudice might justify refusal of a liability order, and exceptionally judicial review intervention, but those possibilities were not engaged on the facts.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on a case stated appeal from the decision of District Judge Morgan sitting in Telford Magistrates’ Court, the appeal was dismissed and the liability order upheld.