High Court dismisses challenge after finding statutory CIL remedies were available and time had expired
CIL liability notices were at the centre of a High Court judicial review challenge concerning a former HSBC bank site in Swindon, but the court has dismissed the claim after finding that statutory review and appeal procedures should have been used.
Sir Peter Lane handed down judgment in Segrue Investments Limited, R (on the application of) v Swindon Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2080 (Admin) on 25 August 2026. The case concerned the refusal by Swindon Borough Council to issue, or exercise its discretion to issue, revised liability notices relating to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payable on two residential developments at the Forum, Marlborough Road, Swindon.
The two liability notices, issued in December 2022 and February 2023, produced a combined CIL liability of £125,274.64. Segrue Investments argued that later evidence showed the liability should instead have been reduced to zero. The company relied particularly on evidence concerning whether the former bank building remained an “in-use building” during the relevant period, including circumstances surrounding its closure during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, an interested person can request a review of a chargeable amount under regulation 113. That request must be made in writing within 28 days of the liability notice being issued. If dissatisfied with the review decision, regulation 114 provides an appeal route, subject to its own statutory requirements and time limit.
The court found that these statutory routes were important to the outcome. Regulation 65(5) gives a collecting authority discretion to issue a revised liability notice at any time, but Sir Peter Lane rejected the argument that this created a blanket obligation to substantively consider any evidence submitted after the review period had expired. The discretion had to be considered alongside the review and appeal provisions, including their time limits.
The judgment nevertheless recognised that regulation 65(5) can provide a mechanism for an authority to respond to evidence arising after the review period. Sir Peter Lane said this could include circumstances where the authority considered that “overtly cogent” late evidence was genuinely unavailable earlier and could not reasonably have been expected to be available. However, that did not assist Segrue Investments on the facts of this case.
The court concluded that the evidence relied upon by the claimant could, and should, have been advanced through the regulation 113 review and regulation 114 appeal procedures. The claimant had been aware from the outset that the Council was concerned about whether the HSBC branch remained in use during the Covid-19 closure. The court found that the claimant could have assembled and presented the relevant evidence through the statutory process.
The High Court also found that the judicial review claim was brought out of time. The later correspondence did not create a new challengeable decision because the Council had not undertaken a fresh internal review capable of restarting the judicial review clock.
The claim was therefore dismissed because there was a suitable alternative remedy and, in any event, the claim was out of time. The court also found that each of the claimant’s four grounds failed.
For solicitors handling CIL disputes, the judgment underlines the importance of using the statutory review and appeal mechanisms within their prescribed time limits rather than seeking to use later correspondence or judicial review to reopen an earlier liability decision.