Introduction

In the pivotal case of Glasgow City Council v. Mr. Hamilton [2025] CSIH 2, the Scottish Court of Session addressed a fundamental issue regarding the enforceability of penalty charge notices (PCNs) within the framework of Low Emission Zones (LEZs). The appellant, Glasgow City Council, contested the validity of a PCN issued to Mr. Allan Hamilton for contravening the Glasgow LEZ on 7 August 2023. The crux of the dispute centered on whether the PCN was enforceable despite being served via ordinary post, rather than through the mandated registered or recorded delivery methods as prescribed by the relevant legislation.

The case highlights the delicate balance between strict adherence to procedural requirements and the substantive objectives of legislative schemes aimed at addressing pressing public concerns—in this instance, urban air pollution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Session, delivered by Lord Pentland, ultimately allowed Glasgow City Council's appeal, overturning the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. The judgment held that the requirement to serve PCNs by registered or recorded delivery, though not strictly adhered to in this instance, did not render the PCN unenforceable. The court emphasized that since Mr. Hamilton received the PCN in ordinary post and was fully aware of the contravention and his rights to contest the charge, the substantive purpose of the LEZ enforcement scheme was fulfilled. Therefore, the procedural lapse did not negate the enforceability of the penalty charge.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referred to several key precedents that have shaped the modern approach to statutory compliance and procedural adherence:

• R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 340: This case dismantled the rigid dichotomy between "mandatory" and "directory" procedural requirements, advocating for a more flexible, consequence-focused approach.
• Osman v Natt [2005] 1 WLR 1536: Addressed the validity of notices and emphasized that the purpose and importance of procedural requirements within the statutory scheme should guide their enforceability.
• A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] 3 WLR 601: Reinforced the importance of assessing whether procedural compliance is critical to the statutory scheme's objectives and whether non-compliance results in significant prejudice.

These precedents collectively support a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, focusing on legislative intent and the practical implications of procedural non-compliance rather than strictly categorizing requirements as mandatory or directory.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on a nuanced interpretation of the legislative scheme governing LEZs. It prioritized the substantive goals of reducing air pollution over strict procedural compliance. Key points in the legal reasoning included:

• Purpose of Procedural Requirements: The procedural rules for serving PCNs aim to ensure that recipients are adequately informed about their obligations and rights. However, when the substantive purpose is met—i.e., the recipient is aware and has the opportunity to contest—the procedural lapse becomes less consequential.
• Flexibility vs. Rigor: Adopting the flexible approach from Soneji and other cases, the court assessed whether the failure to comply with the service method caused any tangible prejudice or undermined the legislative objectives. In Mr. Hamilton's case, there was no such prejudice.
• Substantial Compliance: Although the PCN was not served via the prescribed methods, the recipient received the notice in a timely manner, understood its contents, and exercised his right to contest it effectively.

Consequently, the court determined that the procedural error did not nullify the enforceability of the PCN, as the legislative intent—to deter non-compliance with LEZ standards—was still achieved.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for the enforcement of penalty charges under statutory schemes:

• Procedural Flexibility: Authorities may have greater leeway in the methods used to serve PCNs, provided that the substantive aims of the legislation are fulfilled.
• Emphasis on Substantive Justice: Courts are likely to prioritize the effectiveness of legislative objectives over minor procedural shortcomings, especially when no substantive prejudice is caused.
• Future Enforcement Practices: Local authorities may review and potentially relax certain procedural requirements for serving notices, focusing instead on ensuring that recipients are adequately informed and have the means to contest charges.

Overall, the judgment fosters a balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice, ensuring that legislative schemes remain effective without being hampered by technicalities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The decision in Glasgow City Council v. Hamilton marks a significant development in the interpretation and enforcement of procedural requirements within statutory schemes. By adopting a flexible, purposive approach, the Court of Session underscored the primacy of legislative objectives over procedural technicalities, provided that the core purposes of the law are upheld.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal processes serve their intended functions without becoming entangled in unnecessary formalities. It offers a balanced perspective that accommodates both the need for procedural integrity and the imperative of substantive justice, particularly in areas of public policy as critical as urban air quality management.

Going forward, this precedent is poised to influence not only future LEZ enforcement cases but also broader applications where procedural compliance intersects with significant public interests.