Vtesse Networks Ltd, R (on the application of) v North West Wiltshire Magistrates Court

Magistrates determining liability for non-domestic rates are bound by the valuation entries in the local valuation list. They cannot investigate whether the valuation officer’s determination was valid or correct.

A challenge to the valuation, including a challenge based on European law or on the property’s occupation or location, must be pursued through the statutory valuation tribunal procedure. A procedural rule preventing such matters being raised in liability-order proceedings does not make the exercise of European rights excessively difficult where that alternative procedure is available.

Liability orders were made against the claimant for unpaid national non-domestic rates relating to its fibre-optic network. The district judge refused to state a case, holding that the claimant’s objections concerned matters outside the magistrates’ jurisdiction.

On judicial review, the claimant challenged that conclusion. The issues before the court concerned the effect of regulation 23(1) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, the claimant’s alleged lack of rateable occupation on the relevant day, and the magistrates’ power to stay the liability orders.

1. Claim dismissed. The magistrates’ court had a limited function under regulation 12(5) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989: once satisfied that a sum shown by the valuation list had become payable and remained unpaid, it was required to make a liability order.
2. The statutory scheme separated valuation from collection. Under section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, challenges to the accuracy, validity or allocation of a valuation entry were to be made through proposals and appeals to the valuation tribunals. Regulation 23(1) accordingly prevented such matters being raised in liability-order proceedings.
3. The claimant’s European-law argument did not alter that conclusion. The domestic system could allocate jurisdiction and prescribe procedural rules for enforcing rights derived from European law. The availability of appeals to the Valuation Tribunal and, where appropriate, the Lands Tribunal meant that the claimant’s rights were not rendered virtually impossible or excessively difficult to exercise.
4. The alleged absence of rateable occupation was, on the proper analysis, a challenge to the valuation officer’s determination under regulation 6 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1989. It therefore fell within regulation 23(1), rather than constituting an independent objection to the billing authority’s entitlement to a liability order. The district judge was bound by the valuation-list entries.
5. The issue of a stay of execution was academic in light of the conclusions on the substantive grounds and the related Court of Appeal proceedings. The claim failed on every ground argued.

1. North West Wiltshire magistrates court: made three liability orders on 20 November 2008 and refused on 12 February 2009 to state a case.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J granted permission for judicial review on 10 June 2009. Owen J dismissed the claim.