UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council

A completion notice under Schedule 4A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 must be served by the billing authority on the building owner. Leaving it with an unauthorised third party is insufficient, even where that person later communicates the notice or its contents to the owner. Paragraph 8 provides permissive and non-exclusive methods of service. It does not create a complete code, but neither does it make every form of indirect transmission effective. The statutory context, including the taxing scheme and the strict appeal timetable, supports certainty and precision about service. A private-law dictum concerning indirect contractual notices cannot be extended without qualification to this statutory service regime.

The appellant owned office premises undergoing redevelopment. The respondent billing authority delivered a completion notice by hand to a receptionist employed by the building’s facilities manager. The receptionist was not authorised to accept service for the appellant, although she later scanned and emailed the notice to it.

The Valuation Tribunal held that service was invalid because the notice had not been served on the owner. The Upper Tribunal reversed that decision and held that service was effective when the notice reached the appellant electronically: [2015] UKUT 301 (LC). The appeal concerned whether indirect delivery through an unauthorised third party constituted service under section 46A and Schedule 4A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and whether electronic receipt altered the analysis.

1. Appeal allowed. The completion notice was not properly served and therefore did not determine 1 June 2012 as the completion day.
2. Under section 46A and paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the billing authority must serve the notice on the owner. On the natural meaning of those words, leaving the notice with a person unauthorised to accept service, hoping or intending that it will reach the owner, is not service by the authority on the owner. Subsequent communication by that person does not cure the defect.
3. Paragraph 8 is permissive and non-exclusive. Its opening words permit other modes of service, including an agreed method or service through an authorised agent. The provision can shift the risk of non-receipt where one of its specified methods is used. It does not, however, make every indirect transmission effective. The court rejected the broader approach adopted by the Upper Tribunal.
4. The analogy with section 23(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 was limited. The dictum in Townsend Carriers v Pfizer concerning indirect contractual notice was an obiter observation in a private-law agency context and did not justify the result here. Fagan v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society v Rayner, Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd and Lantic Sugar Limited v Baffin Investment Limited supported the importance of authority to receive service and the insufficiency of mere onward transmission.
5. The taxing context, the deemed basis of liability and the strict appeal period made certainty about the date and manner of service particularly important. The court expressed no concluded view on whether electronic transmission would independently invalidate otherwise valid service. That issue was unnecessary to determine because the original service was already ineffective.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision was reversed and the Valuation Tribunal’s conclusion restored.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed the appeal and held that the completion notice had not been validly served.
2. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) In [2015] UKUT 301 (LC), allowed the billing authority’s appeal and held that service was effective when the notice reached the owner.
3. Valuation Tribunal for England Held that the notice was not properly served and removed the premises from the rating list.