Captain Lee Jones v Shropshire Council

Section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 limits proceedings brought in a court or tribunal to recover sums recoverable by virtue of an enactment. It does not impose a general limitation period on administrative enforcement action taken by a public authority under statutory powers.

A CIL stop notice issued under regulation 90 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is an administrative enforcement measure, not an action brought in court proceedings. The six-year period in section 9(1) therefore does not apply to its issue. Other public law controls remain available, including judicial review of whether it was expedient to stop the development.

The claimant sought judicial review of Shropshire Council’s decision to issue and serve a CIL stop notice under regulation 90 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in respect of unpaid Community Infrastructure Levy.

The claimant argued that the notice was an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment and was therefore time barred by section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, because the CIL had become due more than six years earlier. The council contended that section 9(1) concerned legal proceedings, not administrative enforcement action. The central issue was whether issuing a CIL stop notice constituted an action within section 9(1).

1. The claim was dismissed. The issue of the CIL stop notice was not time barred under section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980.
2. The expression “an action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment” had to be interpreted in the context of section 9 and Part 1 of the Limitation Act 1980 as a whole. Those provisions prescribed ordinary time limits for classes of legal proceedings, in which a court or tribunal was asked to grant a remedy.
3. The extended definition of “action” in section 38(1), including any proceedings in a court of law, widened the ordinary meaning of the term only to cover proceedings in a court of law, and potentially proceedings in a tribunal. It did not extend to administrative action by a public authority exercising statutory powers outside court or tribunal proceedings.
4. China v Harrow Urban District Council [1954] 1 QB 178 supported the conclusion that proceedings in a magistrates’ court to recover an enactment-based sum fell within the limitation provision. It did not support applying section 9(1) to administrative enforcement action.
5. The CIL stop-notice regime was designed as an alternative means of enforcing payment without court proceedings. Its availability was subject to other safeguards, including the requirement under regulation 89(1) that the authority consider it expedient to stop development, stated reasons, limited statutory appeal rights, and judicial review under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. The court left open the separate question whether issuing a CIL stop notice was an action “to recover any sum”, since that issue did not need to be decided.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Permission was ultimately granted on appeal by Popplewell LJ on 18 October 2023. The claim was dismissed by the High Court.