Nicolson, R (on the application of) v Tottenham Magistrates & Anor

Under Regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, magistrates may award only costs actually incurred, reasonably incurred, and incurred in obtaining a liability order. The question is one of mixed fact and law, not discretion. The court must have sufficient information to establish the causal link between the costs claimed and the enforcement process. A standard or averaged figure may be lawful, but only where the calculation is transparent and excludes general administration, pre-enforcement costs and artificial or duplicated items. A respondent must have a fair opportunity to challenge the proposed costs. Failure to obtain and provide adequate information renders the order unlawful.

The claimant challenged the decision of Tottenham Magistrates to award the London Borough of Haringey £125 costs under Regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 when making a liability order against him. He had asked how the standard figure was calculated and how it represented costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the order. The magistrates refused to state a case under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, describing the application as futile and academic.

Permission was granted for judicial review of the underlying costs decision. The central issues were whether the magistrates had sufficient relevant information, whether they should have made further inquiries, and whether the claimant had been given a fair opportunity to challenge the legality of the costs order.

1. The claim succeeded. The costs order had been withdrawn, so the court made a declaration that it was unlawful. The magistrates had insufficient information to make a proper judicial determination, failed to make necessary inquiries, and denied the claimant a fair opportunity to make informed submissions.
2. Regulation 34(7) requires the magistrates to be satisfied that: (i) the local authority actually incurred the costs; (ii) they were incurred in obtaining the liability order; and (iii) it was reasonable for the authority to incur them. The issue is mixed fact and law, not a discretionary assessment of a reasonable amount.
3. There must be a sufficient causal connection with the enforcement process. Costs connected with the summons application may be included under Regulation 34(5), including more than the summons fee, but general council-tax administration and costs incurred before the decision to enforce are generally outside the recoverable scope. Costs of checking the correct amount and respondent after that decision may qualify.
4. A local authority may in principle aggregate legitimate costs and calculate an average figure for standard cases. It must guard against double-counting and artificial inflation. Magistrates and their clerk must have readily available information enabling them to verify the calculation, and that information must be supplied to a respondent on request.
5. Whether costs were reasonably incurred differs from whether they were reasonable in amount. The amount may bear on the former, but the essential question remains whether the expenditure was reasonably incurred in obtaining the order. The magistrates addressed the wrong question and relied only on vague assertions about administrative time and personnel.
6. The claimant was entitled to information sufficient to understand and challenge the proposed costs. His failure to request an adjournment or prior disclosure did not cure the absence of information. The court applied the approach in Sunworld Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 2102 concerning judicial review where magistrates refuse to state a case.

• Tottenham Magistrates’ Court: made a £125 costs order under Regulation 34(7) and later refused to state a case under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted judicial review, declared the order unlawful, and ordered the Council to pay the claimant’s costs.