Gray, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

A judicial review claim concerning suspension of council tax benefit becomes unnecessary where the public authority confirms that the suspension did not continue beyond the relevant period. The court determines only the claim actually brought. A separate challenge to enforcement action by bailiffs cannot be introduced through that claim. Where the claimant has effectively obtained the clarification sought, permission to pursue the unnecessary claim may be refused.

The claimant sought judicial review of Bristol City Council’s suspension of his council tax benefit following a temporary interruption in his job seekers’ allowance. The council confirmed at the hearing that the suspension applied only up to 19 May 2008. The claimant also sought to connect the suspension with bailiff action taken to recover an earlier council tax debt. The central issues were whether the claim remained necessary and whether the court could determine the alleged unlawfulness of the bailiff action within these proceedings.

The application had previously been refused as totally without merit and was renewed before the Administrative Court.

1. Permission refused. The council’s statement, confirmed in open court, established that the claimant’s council tax benefit had not been suspended after 19 May 2008. The claim, which sought removal of a continuing suspension, was therefore unnecessary and unarguable.
2. The court could determine only the claim actually brought. The claimant’s contention that bailiffs could not lawfully enforce an earlier council tax debt against a person receiving job seekers’ allowance was not part of the claim concerning suspension of council tax benefit.
3. The judge expressed the provisional view that the existence of funds which were disregarded in calculating job seekers’ allowance might not prevent enforcement of past debts, although the point was not finally decided. Any challenge to the bailiff action had to be raised separately with the council and pursued through any appropriate civil remedy.
4. The clarification obtained at the hearing did not make the original claim an appropriate vehicle for determining those separate consequences. There was accordingly nothing within the claim against which an appeal could properly be brought.

The renewed application followed an earlier refusal by Mr Justice Goldring, who considered the application totally without merit. The Administrative Court, before Mr Justice Collins, refused permission on renewal.