Pilot Foods Ltd., R (on the application of) v Horsferry Road Magistrates Court

Where a liability-order summons is issued against a company, service at its registered office is required under regulation 13(2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1999. Service at premises which are not the company’s registered office is invalid. The resulting absence of notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes procedural unfairness and breaches natural justice. Judicial review may quash the liability order where the company was not in rateable occupation and the evidence, had it been heard, would have prevented the order. Delay will not necessarily defeat relief where the claimant pursued other remedies, particularly where the relevant authority contributed to the procedural course.

The claimant sought judicial review of two liability orders made by the Horsferry Road Magistrates’ Court for non-domestic rates totalling £100,852.92. The orders covered periods during which the claimant asserted that it was not in rateable occupation of premises at 23 Villiers Street.

The claimant had not occupied the premises. It had granted operating rights to other companies, which occupied them during the relevant periods. The summonses were served at 23 Villiers Street rather than at the claimant’s registered office at 29 Villiers Street. The central issues were whether service complied with regulation 13(2), whether the claimant had suffered procedural unfairness, and whether relief should be refused for delay.

1. The claim for judicial review succeeded and the two liability orders were quashed. The summonses had not been validly served because they were left at 23 Villiers Street, whereas regulation 13(2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1999 required service on a company at its registered office.
2. The failure to comply with the service regulations deprived the claimant of notice of the hearings and the opportunity to oppose the orders. That amounted to procedural unfairness and a breach of natural justice. The court accepted that objective unfairness could establish a breach without proof of fault, consistently with the approach supported by R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330.
3. On the uncontested evidence, the claimant had not been in occupation during the relevant periods. The court therefore considered that, had the evidence been before the magistrates, no liability orders would have been made.
4. Although the claim had been brought after delay, the delay did not justify refusing relief. The claimant had pursued several other routes, including one suggested by the interested party, and the interested party did not rely on delay.
5. The claimant was awarded its costs against Westminster City Council, assessed at £5,000 excluding VAT. The Council had liberty to apply regarding the assessment within seven days of service of the order.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No appellate history was stated.