Wiltshire Council v Piggin

In council tax enforcement proceedings, a magistrates’ court may determine only matters within the jurisdiction conferred by statute. A person’s liability to pay council tax is an issue capable of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal under section 16 of the 1992 Act. By regulation 57(1) of the 1992 regulations, that issue may not be raised as a defence in enforcement proceedings before magistrates.

Where a magistrates’ court has finally determined an application for a liability order for a particular period, it cannot make a different determination later merely because circumstances have changed. The earlier decision is res judicata. The decision refusing the liability order was therefore outside the magistrates’ jurisdiction and was quashed.

Wiltshire Council appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the South East Wiltshire Magistrates’ Court on 13 May 2013 refusing to make a liability order against Michael Piggin for unpaid council tax relating to 55 Harnham Road, Salisbury.

The magistrates found that Mr Piggin was the registered owner, that council tax was outstanding, and that MC Trust was the beneficial owner. They accepted that it was unreasonable to make a liability order against him because the trust had offered to pay. They also considered that a further application could be made if the Valuation Tribunal later found Mr Piggin liable.

The issues were whether the magistrates had jurisdiction to consider Mr Piggin’s liability and whether a further liability-order application could be made for the same period.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ decision was quashed and the Council’s application for a liability order was remitted for reconsideration.
2. Mr Piggin’s contention that he was not liable because the property belonged beneficially to MC Trust concerned his liability to pay council tax. That was a matter capable of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal under section 16 of the 1992 Act. The fact that the Council might ultimately receive payment from the trust did not alter the statutory allocation of jurisdiction.
3. Regulation 57(1) of the 1992 regulations provides that any matter capable of being appealed under section 16 may not be raised in enforcement proceedings. The magistrates therefore erred in law by permitting Mr Piggin to advance the liability argument and by refusing the liability order on that basis.
4. The magistrates also erred in concluding that a further liability-order application could be made for the same period if the Valuation Tribunal later decided against Mr Piggin. Once the application had been determined, the court could not reverse its decision on a later occasion merely because circumstances had changed. The matter was res judicata.
5. The remitted magistrates could decide whether to proceed while Tribunal proceedings remained pending or to adjourn until those proceedings, including any appeal, had concluded. It would probably have been sensible originally to adjourn. No order for the Council’s High Court costs was made, despite its success, because the enforcement proceedings might have been avoided if payment by MC Trust had been accepted or the matter adjourned.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ decision was quashed and the liability-order application was remitted for reconsideration.