[2025] EWHC 2336 (Ch)

I should nonetheless consider what the position would be if they had not been sent as soon as practicable after the relevant dates.

In North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Limited [2010] EWHC 1505 (QB) Burnett J held as follows.

“[60] In summary, therefore, a failure to serve a Regulation 5 notice as soon as practicable does not result in automatic invalidity. Rather, the court determining any issue resulting from such a failure will have regard to the length of delay and the impact of that delay upon the ratepayer, in the context of the public interest in collecting outstanding rates. The greater the prejudice to the ratepayer flowing from the delay, the more likely will be the conclusion that Parliament intended invalidity to follow.

[61] Prejudice may flow to business ratepayers in any number of ways as a result of a late notice to pay rates. Prejudice is different from inconvenience … [The] prejudice relied upon must be substantial and certainly not technical or contrived … The countervailing public interest is in the collection of taxes, the interests of other tax payers and the revenues of the local authority concerned.”

The defendant argues that it has suffered substantial prejudice by reason of delay in serving the demand notice. It relies on three categories of prejudice.