High Court Rules on the Service of Local Authority Decision Notices by Email

The High Court has confirmed that email service of statutory notices and decisions by local authorities is valid and effective on delivery, irrespective of whether the email is seen by the person concerned. Authors Chloe McQuillan, Olivia Peake, and Amy Dann explain what you need to know.

Decision of Maidstone Magistrates’ Court

The Magistrates’ Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council to revoke the appellant’s taxi licence, a decision that had been sent to the appellant by email on 2 September 2024 (the “Decision Notice”). In accordance with section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936, the time for appealing was 21 days from the date on which notice of the revocation was served on the appellant.

The Magistrates’ Court held that the appellant had not filed his appeal against the Council’s decision in time (i.e. within the statutory time limit of 21 days from service of the Decision Notice). The appellant contended that the Decision Notice had not been validly served on 2 September because he did not receive it then. However, the Magistrates’ Court found that service in these circumstances was effective. Subsequently, this appeal came before the High Court in March 2026, where the central issue raised by the appellant was that the email had not been received by him as it had gone into his spam folder.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there had been a “successful electronic “handshake”” where the email had been sent and ultimately received by the appellant’s email operating system (irrespective of whether it had entered his spam folder).

The Court decided that a finding as to whether the email did in fact deliver to the appellant’s spam folder was outside the scope of the appeal, but found that – even assuming it did – the Decision Notice had been effectively served.

Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides a non-exhaustive list of methods by which a local authority may serve notices, orders or other documents on the person concerned.  In this case, the Council chose to serve by email, which was permissible at common law, provided the Council could show the notice was “received” by the appellant.  The issue therefore turned on the meaning of “received”.

It was noted that the email had been recorded on the Council’s system as having been received (as opposed to rejected) by the appellant’s operating system, and the Council had no way of knowing whether the email had gone into any particular folder in the appellant’s system.  Additionally, the Court considered it important that the Council’s licencing officer had previously been liaising with the appellant via email, and had warned him that a decision was going to be sent to him in a few days. Therefore, any reasonable person in the appellant’s position would have looked out for the Decision Notice in both their inbox and spam folder.  Accordingly, the Council had proved all that it needed to prove in order for service to be effective, and was not required to demonstrate that the appellant was actually aware of the contents of the notice which had been sent to him.

The full judgment in Berow v Maidstone Borough Council [2026] EWHC 635 (Admin) can be accessed here.

Key takeaways

This judgment endorses the existing approach of many public authorities by confirming the lawfulness of serving decision notices on parties by email, provided the email is received by the recipient’s email system (even if the email goes into the recipient’s spam folder or does not come to their attention for some other reason). It is also worth noting that the Court attached significance to the fact that the parties had consistently communicated by email previously.

Although this case concerned the service of a notice revoking a taxi licence, the relevant provisions govern a wide range of statutory decisions and notices, so the principle extends to other contexts.

The judgment also serves as a practical reminder that individuals expecting a decision notice should monitor their inboxes closely (including their spam folder) and take prompt action to make enquiries where a decision has not arrived within the expected timeframe.

Indeed, the same could be said for those responsible for complying with ongoing licence conditions.  Only a month later – in R (on the application of Dilpasand Commercial Road One Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] 4 WLUK 408 – the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the revocation of a restaurant’s sponsor licence where it had failed to respond to email requests for information because they had been marked as spam.  In that case, it was relevant that the Secretary of State’s guidance had explicitly explained how to avoid that happening and, as in Berow, the emails had been received by the recipient’s operating system, such that the sender had been entitled to conclude that the contents had been received by the licence holder.

Experts on Your Side

If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published.