Pall Mall Investments Ltd v Leeds City Council

Where magistrates are alleged to have erred in law, the ordinary and appropriate remedy is an appeal by way of case stated. Judicial review will generally be refused where that adequate alternative remedy was available, particularly where the case involved only legal argument and no procedural unfairness, bias or unresolved factual issue. Permission does not prevent the court from dismissing the claim after a substantive hearing.

For an exemption from non-domestic rates under regulation 2(2)(b) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989, the owner must show that occupation was prohibited by law. A property’s poor, unsafe or dilapidated condition, or the possibility that occupation might contravene legislation, was insufficient.

Pall Mall Investments Ltd sought judicial review of Leeds City Council’s refusal to exempt a warehouse from non-domestic rates and of a liability order made by Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 6 September 2012.

The company contended that the warehouse’s condition meant that it was prohibited by law from being occupied under regulation 2(2)(b) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989. It had indicated an intention to appeal by case stated but failed to request a case within the statutory time limit. The central issues were whether judicial review was an appropriate route and whether the magistrates had erred in law.

1. Application dismissed. The claim was wholly without merit. The claimant failed to pursue the available appeal by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. It also failed to challenge the council’s earlier decision promptly.
2. The ordinary route for challenging an alleged error of law by magistrates is case stated. Judicial review may remain appropriate for procedural unfairness, bias, improper interference by a clerk, or issues of fact which the magistrates could not determine. This case concerned a single issue of law on undisputed facts and showed none of those features.
3. The court retained discretion to refuse judicial review even though permission had been granted. The grant of permission did not prevent the court, after considering the full material, from concluding that the claim was inappropriate in substance and was being used to avoid the failed case-stated appeal.
4. The magistrates’ decision on regulation 2(2)(b) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989 was correct. The condition of the property did not establish that occupation was legally prohibited. It showed, at most, that occupation might require repairs or might attract consequences under other legislation. No actual prohibition on occupation had been imposed.
5. The cases concerning judicial review of magistrates’ decisions did not require a different result. The circumstances which had justified proceeding by judicial review in Brighton and Hove City Council v Brighton and Hove Justices and R (on the application of) P v Liverpool City Magistrates were absent. There was no unfairness, improper conduct or disputed factual issue.

The proceedings were dismissed. The claimant did not appear and no separate order concerning the Magistrates’ Court was required.

The claim was brought directly for judicial review of the council’s refusal of a rates exemption and the liability order made by Leeds Magistrates’ Court. Permission was granted on paper on 6 February 2013, but the High Court dismissed the claim after the substantive hearing.