Secerno Ltd & Ors v Oxford Magistrates Court & Anor

A breach by a billing authority of its duty to provide information for the alteration of a non-domestic rating list does not qualify the liability created by section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, or the statutory collection and enforcement regime. Where the occupier was liable under section 43, the hereditament was shown in the list, and the demand notice was properly served, the amount became payable. A Magistrates’ Court determining a liability-order application cannot go behind the valuation list or investigate an alleged breach of regulation 42 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005. Regulation 42 concerns the efficient maintenance of the list and does not affect liability or recoverability.

The claimants were non-domestic ratepayers. The Council sought liability orders for unpaid business rates relating to periods before their hereditaments were entered in the local non-domestic rating list.

They alleged that the Council had failed to comply with regulation 42 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005 by delaying the supply of information to the Valuation Officer. The Deputy District Judge declined to investigate that issue and concluded that he had no jurisdiction to refuse the liability orders on that basis.

The central issue was whether an alleged breach of regulation 42 could prevent the rates becoming payable or prevent their collection and enforcement under the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989.

1. The claim was dismissed. Regulation 12(5) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 required the Magistrates’ Court to make a liability order if satisfied that the sum had become payable and remained unpaid. It conferred no discretion in those circumstances.
2. The conditions in section 43(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 were satisfied. The claimants occupied the hereditaments and those hereditaments were shown in the local list for the relevant days. Liability therefore arose under primary legislation. Regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations could not qualify that liability.
3. The liability to pay and the duty to pay were distinct. The liability arose under section 43. The duty to pay arose under the 1989 Regulations after service of a demand notice. The Council had served notices in accordance with that statutory regime, so the amounts became payable and the enforcement provisions were engaged.
4. The authorities establishing that a Magistrates’ Court cannot go behind the valuation list applied. The claimants’ argument, although framed as an attack on recoverability rather than validity of the list, necessarily sought to undermine the statutory consequences of entry in the list.
5. Regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations assisted the Valuation Officer in maintaining an up-to-date list. It was not part of the collection and enforcement code and contained no provision qualifying the amount calculated under section 43 or the demand-notice requirements. Any issue concerning compliance with regulation 42 was therefore irrelevant to an application for a liability order.

The claim for judicial review challenged a decision of Deputy District Judge Dean in Oxford Magistrates’ Court dated 25 November 2009. The Administrative Court rejected the challenge.