Lawson v Scarborough Magistrates' Court

For the purposes of a council tax liability order, the magistrates’ court must make the order where it is satisfied that the sum has become payable and remains unpaid. The taxpayer’s intention, ability to pay, changes in interest rates, or alleged unfairness in the underlying benefits assessment are irrelevant to that statutory question. A judicial review claim has no realistic prospect of success where the taxpayer does not dispute that the council tax is due and unpaid, but challenges only the economic assumptions affecting his ability to pay.

Information was laid for unpaid council tax. The magistrates’ court made a liability order under regulation 34 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992, including costs. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the magistrates had failed to consider his intention, his reduced ability to pay following falls in interest rates, and his rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claim was lodged two days outside the three-month period in Civil Procedure Rules 54.5. Permission was refused by His Honour Judge Langan QC. The claimant renewed his application for an oral hearing before the Administrative Court.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was dismissed because it had no prospect of success.
2. Regulation 34 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 required the magistrates’ court to make a liability order once satisfied that the council tax had become payable and had not been paid. The claimant did not dispute that the sum was owed.
3. The magistrates’ court therefore had no discretion to decline the order on the basis that the claimant lacked the means to pay. The fall in interest rates, the absence of a corresponding reassessment of pension credits, and the claimant’s resulting financial difficulty were irrelevant to whether the statutory conditions for a liability order were met.
4. The claimant’s intention was likewise irrelevant. The court was required to apply the statutory test rather than determine whether non-payment was deliberate or excusable.
5. Arguments based on the Unfair Contract Terms Act, misrepresentation, reasonableness and general unfairness did not affect the statutory liability to pay council tax. Any wider complaint about pension credits or the economic consequences of government policy had to be pursued with the relevant public authorities or political representatives.
6. The court expressed sympathy with the claimant’s circumstances but held that the magistrates’ decision was not arguably incorrect. The joinder issue concerning Scarborough Borough Council did not affect the result.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on renewal of the claimant’s application, permission for judicial review was refused and the application was dismissed.
• Administrative Court: His Honour Judge Langan QC had previously refused permission on 5 March 2010.