High Court rules on lawfulness of emailing licensing Decision Notices

Up and down the country, and for several years, licensing authorities have routinely emailed out their Decision Notices to relevant parties following determinations at licensing hearings. However, as the High Court has pithily observed in an earlier licensing case: “Orthodoxy is no more proof of legality than novelty is of illegality”.[1] The legality of emailing Decision Notices in a licensing context has now been ruled upon by the High Court.  

The High Court, by a decision of Sir Peter Lane, has dismissed a taxi driver’s appeal against the revocation of his dual driver’s licence by way of case stated relating to the service of statutory notices and decisions by local authorities under sections 300(2) Public Health Act 1936 and section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, finding that e-mail service of such decisions is valid and effected on delivery, regardless as to whether the e-mail goes to the recipient’s spam folder and is thereby not seen until the deadline for making an appeal has expired.

Although this particular case concerned the service of a notice revoking a taxi licence, these provisions govern a wide range of statutory decisions, and it is therefore a judgment of wide application. The Court also deals with a point of practice and procedure, being the scope of an appeal by way of case stated in light of the findings of the Magistrates’ Court and the arguments ventilated before them.

Resultingly, the High Court has confirmed that local authorities are entitled to serve notices and decisions under the relevant provisions by e-mail, and service will not be defeated by a claim that the e-mail, though successfully delivered, went to the person’s spam folder. The judgment also helpfully clarifies that a case stated appeal is limited to the factual findings made by the Magistrates’ Court.

The full judgment in Berow v Maidstone Borough Council [2026] EWHC 635 (Admin) can be accessed here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/635.pdf

Gary Grant & Armin Solimani, Barristers at Francis Taylor Building, acted for the successful local authority, instructed by Helen Ward of Mid Kent Legal Services. Gabriel Nelson, also of Francis Taylor Building, acted for the appellant driver, instructed by LSL Solicitors.

[1] See Turner J in Extreme Oyster v Guildford BC [2013]