Tower of Refuge Ministry, R (on the application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates Corut & Anor

A ratepayer seeking mandatory relief from non-domestic rates must establish, on the evidence available when liability is determined, that it is a charity and that the statutory conditions for relief are satisfied. A pending application for charitable registration, or previous recognition by a billing authority, is insufficient evidence. Judicial review cannot succeed where the magistrates had no adequate evidential basis for granting relief. Subsequent recognition of charitable status does not alter the position at the liability hearing. A billing authority was entitled to withdraw mandatory relief where a false charity number had been used, and unchallenged discretionary relief could not later be raised.

The claimant, a religious organisation occupying premises in Islington, applied for judicial review of a liability order made by the Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 15 September 2003 in respect of unpaid non-domestic rates. The London Borough of Islington had withdrawn mandatory rate relief after discovering that the claimant had used a false charity number. The claimant argued that the magistrates should have adjourned the matter pending the Charity Commission’s consideration of its registration application and should have found that it was a charity. The central issues were whether the claimant had produced sufficient evidence of charitable status and whether the magistrates’ refusal to adjourn was unlawful.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant had failed to establish any legal error in the magistrates’ decision to make a liability order.
2. Under section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, mandatory relief depended on the ratepayer being a charity and the hereditament being wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. The burden rested on the claimant to establish those statutory conditions.
3. Regulation 12(5) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 empowered the magistrates to make a liability order where satisfied that the sum had become payable and remained unpaid. The evidence before them consisted only of the withdrawal of Islington’s recognition and a letter stating that the Charity Commissioners were considering an application. That fell far short of evidence on which the magistrates could be satisfied that the claimant was a charity.
4. Islington had been entitled to withdraw the mandatory relief after discovering the use of a false charity number. No proper basis for challenging that decision had been advanced. The claimant had not challenged the refusal of discretionary relief at the relevant time.
5. The court did not determine the application on the alternative grounds that the claim should have proceeded by case stated or was out of time, although the judge observed that he would have refused permission on those bases. Later recognition of charitable status did not affect the position as it appeared before the magistrates in September 2003.

Costs were summarily assessed at £3,895.

1. Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: made a liability order on 15 September 2003 for unpaid non-domestic rates.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim and summarily assessed costs at £3,895.