Tull, R (on the application of) v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court & Anor

For council tax liability orders, a person’s “last known place of abode” means the last place known to the billing authority after taking reasonable steps to establish the relevant facts. Knowledge requires a factual basis and is more than belief or mistaken belief.

Where summonses were not properly served and a substantial procedural error occurred, a magistrates’ court has an inherent power to set aside the resulting liability orders. A person may obtain quashing relief even where the authority accepts that the orders will not be enforced, because court orders adversely affecting a citizen should not remain in force merely because enforcement is waived.

The claimant sought judicial review of three liability orders made by Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court in 1996 and 1998 for council tax concerning a flat owned by her but occupied by a tenant for most of the relevant period. She challenged the court’s refusal to revoke the orders.

The summonses had been sent to the flat. The central issues were whether that address was the claimant’s last known place of abode under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, whether the magistrates had power to set aside improperly obtained liability orders, and whether relief was academic because the council accepted that the claimant was liable only during periods when the flat was vacant.

The claim succeeded. The three liability orders were quashed.

1. Service. Regulation 35(2)(c) required service at the last place of abode known to the council. The council was required to take reasonable steps to establish that place. The evidence did not show that the claimant had ever lived in the flat as an adult, and available information, including the electoral register and the managing agent’s letter, should have made clear that the flat was occupied by a tenant. The summonses were therefore not properly served.
2. Setting aside liability orders. Although no comprehensive procedural code applied, the decisions in Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin) and R (on the application of Brighton & Hove City Council) v Brighton & Hove Justices & Michael Hamdan [2004] EWHC Admin established that the magistrates had an inherent power to reopen a liability order where a substantial procedural error had occurred. The requirements identified in the latter decision were satisfied.
3. Relief. The proceedings were not academic. Liability orders are civil orders for payment which may lead to enforcement, including imprisonment if unpaid. A citizen is entitled, subject to promptitude and openness, to have improperly made orders set aside even where the authority is willing not to enforce them.
4. Costs. The magistrates had not actively participated and had not acted unreasonably in refusing to sign a consent order, so no costs order was made against them. The council had entered the litigation to defend service and had lost on that substantial issue. It was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the assessed costs of the whole case, in addition to the sum already ordered for the earlier hearing.

Not stated in the judgment.