Mohammed Berow v Maidstone Borough Council

Where legislation does not prescribe an exhaustive method of service, electronic service may be effective at common law. The serving party must prove receipt. Receipt does not require the recipient to read or understand the notice, but requires a reasonable opportunity to acquaint themselves with its contents. An email may be received when accepted by the recipient’s email system, including an automatically created spam folder, depending on all the circumstances. Relevant circumstances include previous use of email, the recipient’s knowledge that a decision was imminent, and the reasonable steps expected of both parties. The appeal was dismissed.

Mohammed Berow appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by Maidstone Magistrates’ Court of his appeal against Maidstone Borough Council’s revocation of his dual private hire and hackney carriage driver’s licence. The Magistrates’ Court held that the Council’s email of 2 September 2024, containing the reasons for revocation and appeal information, was effective service. It therefore treated the 21-day appeal period as having begun on that date.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that email service was impermissible without prior notice and assent, or alternatively that service did not occur until he saw the email in October after it allegedly entered his spam folder. The central issues were whether service could be effected at common law by email, what constituted receipt, and the date on which effective service occurred.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Magistrates’ Court had not erred in law in treating the email of 2 September 2024 as effective service. The answer to Question 2 was no, and the answer to Question 3 was 2 September 2024.
2. Sections 61 and 77 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, read with section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936, made the appeal period 21 days from service of the notice of the Council’s decision. Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 did not provide an exhaustive code.
3. At common law, the party relying on non-statutory service bears the burden of proving service. That requires proof that the notice was received. It does not ordinarily require proof that the recipient read or understood it. The relevant question is whether the recipient had a reasonable opportunity to acquaint themselves with the notice, having regard to all the circumstances.
4. The Court declined to determine as a fact whether the email had entered the appellant’s spam folder, because that issue had not been material to the case advanced before the Magistrates’ Court and was outside the factual scope of the case-stated appeal.
5. Alternatively, even assuming that the email entered the spam folder, service was effective. The email was accepted by the appellant’s email system, as shown by the delivery receipt. Previous email communications, the appellant’s knowledge that his licence was being revoked, and the reasonable expectation that he would monitor both inbox and spam folder meant that he had an opportunity to acquaint himself with the notice.
6. Prescribed statutory methods protect the server against non-delivery. Reliance on a non-statutory method instead requires the server to prove actual receipt, but the recipient need not have actual awareness of the contents.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated was dismissed. Service of the Council’s decision notice was held to have occurred on 2 September 2024.
• Maidstone Magistrates’ Court: On 22 April 2025, the appellant’s appeal against revocation was dismissed as out of time, the 21-day period having begun on 2 September 2024.