Augustine Housing Trust, R (on the application of) v Grays Magistrates Court

A challenge to magistrates’ liability orders concerning charitable relief should ordinarily be brought by way of case stated where that remedy is available. Judicial review may remain available in limited circumstances, but strict time limits and procedural responsibilities apply. For the purpose of determining whether property is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes, a council may require relevant financial and other material, including accounts. The information sought must remain relevant and must not become so onerous that the requirement cannot be justified.

Augustine Housing Trust sought permission to apply for judicial review of two liability orders made by Grays Magistrates’ Court for unpaid national non-domestic rates. The Trust argued that Thurrock Borough Council had unlawfully required audited accounts and other information when considering its claim for charitable relief under section 43(6) of the Local Government and Finance Act of 1988.

The application also raised whether judicial review was appropriate where a case stated procedure was available, and whether the Council was entitled to require the material in question.

1. Permission refused. The challenge should have been brought by way of case stated. Although judicial review can be permitted where case stated is an alternative remedy, such cases are limited. The Trust’s solicitors were responsible for ensuring that any request to state a case was received and pursued within the strict applicable time limits.
2. The argument on statutory interpretation had no merit. Section 43(6) of the Local Government and Finance Act of 1988 required the Council to determine whether the hereditaments were wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. In making that determination, the Council was entitled to require relevant material, including accounts and other documents.
3. The court accepted that the Council could require audited accounts, although it was in fact satisfied with unaudited accounts. The fact that the claimant was registered as a charity did not resolve whether the properties were used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. Other relevant evidence might include witness evidence, contractual documents and licences.
4. The power to request information was not unlimited. Information could be challenged if it became irrelevant to the statutory issue or so onerous that the Council could not justify requiring it. Those limits were not reached here.
5. The Council was entitled to its costs. Applying the principle discussed in Mount Cook, this was an exceptional case in which costs could properly be awarded at the permission stage. Costs were assessed at £3,000 in total.

not stated in the judgment.