Extravagant delay
Extravagant delay
The suggestion is that the delay in service of the demand notices was extravagant and unexplained, and that the defendant has a legitimate expectation, and arranges its affairs on the basis, that billing authorities will act in accordance with their statutory obligations so as not to surprise taxpayers with a substantial tax liability years after the event.
However, I have already found that there was no such delay. Had there been any, I should have found that it was nothing of which the defendant could complain, since it would have arisen from its own lack of candour. I would not accept that the defendant had been surprised in any event.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legislative framework
- “… there are four necessary ingredients in rateable occupation …
- Liability to pay NDR
- Historical background
- The decision in Rossendale
- Two tests?
- Rossendale continued
- Real and practical
- Misuse of legal process
- Specific matters
- Clarke Industrial Estate
- Pt 1 st floor and Suite B
- Demand Notices
- As soon as practicable
- Prejudice
- Limitation
- Other steps to avoid or mitigate NDR liability
- Extravagant delay
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2336 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)