Ewing v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court & Anor

When a magistrates’ court orders costs under regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, it must have sufficient relevant information to determine whether the costs were reasonably incurred in obtaining the liability order. The court must make further inquiries where the computation and constituent elements of the costs are unclear. The person liable must also have a fair opportunity to challenge the proposed costs before the order is made. If the costs element is unlawful, the aggregate liability order must be quashed to that extent and, where the aggregate depends on the costs, the whole order falls away.

The claimant, a vexatious litigant, obtained permission to seek judicial review of a magistrates’ court’s refusal to state a case and of the costs imposed when a liability order was made for unpaid council tax. The permitted issues concerned whether the costs were reasonably incurred in obtaining the liability order and whether the permission application should be renewed in relation to the underlying liability order.

The costs issue arose in circumstances materially addressed in R (on the application of The Reverend Paul Nicholson) v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin). The central questions were whether the costs order was lawful and what effect its invalidity had on the aggregate liability order.

1. The claim concerning the costs order succeeded. The court followed the reasoning of R (on the application of The Reverend Paul Nicholson) v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin).

2. Under regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, the magistrates must determine whether the applicant’s costs were reasonably incurred in obtaining the liability order. That requires sufficient relevant information about the calculation and constituent elements of the sum claimed.

3. The magistrates’ court had insufficient information to make a proper judicial determination, failed to make further inquiries into how the costs were computed, and denied the claimant a fair opportunity to challenge the proposed costs by failing to provide requested information.

4. The costs order was therefore unlawful and was quashed. The court did not need to determine the claimant’s liability for the underlying council tax debt.

5. On the renewal issue, the claimant’s permission under section 42(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was interpreted broadly. No further permission was required to renew the application concerning the decision not to state a case under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act.

6. Because the liability order represented the aggregate of the debt and the unlawful costs, removal of the costs element required the balance forming the aggregate to fall away. The liability order was therefore quashed.

not stated in the judgment.