Wrightway Trouble Shooting Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v County Court At Leeds

A debt is not discharged by a debtor’s unilateral promise to pay. Payment requires legal tender or an effective mechanism, such as a cheque drawn on a bank account, which transfers the money or makes the creditor better off. The pound sign is an ordinary symbol denoting pounds sterling and does not require a separate statutory definition. A challenge to a county court decision by judicial review must disclose a recognised jurisdictional error or a significant failure of justice. Arguments founded on an artificial distinction between the pound sign, legal tender and payment will not satisfy that threshold.

The claimant had failed to file its company accounts on time and owed late filing penalties to Companies House under the Companies Act 2006 and the Companies (Late Filing Penalties) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Filing Periods and Late Filing Penalties) Regulations 2008. It sent Companies House a self-created document described as a credit draft, rather than a bank cheque or other effective means of transferring funds.

The County Court ordered payment of the debt. Permission to appeal was refused as totally without merit. Permission to seek judicial review was then refused on grounds including delay and the principles in R (on the application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR and R (on the application of Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132. The central issues were whether the pound sign had legal significance and whether the credit draft discharged the debt.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s arguments had no merit and could not justify judicial review of the County Court’s decision.

2. The pound sign is a common sign which denotes pounds sterling. It identifies the amount due. It does not determine whether payment must be made in physical cash or legal tender.

3. A debt may be paid in legal tender or by an effective order to a bank to pay money from a bank account. A document created by the debtor which merely promises payment, without providing an effective means of transferring the money, is not payment. The creditor remains no better off and the debt remains outstanding.

4. The claimant’s attempt to bring the argument within the framework of R (on the application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR was misconceived. The points disclosed neither an absence of pre-Anisminic jurisdiction nor a significant failure of justice effectively amounting to a denial of justice.

5. The court declined to make an extended or general civil restraint order at that stage, but warned that further litigation of the same points could result in such an order. The court would have been minded to extend time if a substantive point had existed, but no such point was disclosed.

The judgment records that:

• County Court at Leeds: the Deputy District Judge ordered payment of the unpaid penalties. His Honour Judge Gosnell refused permission to appeal and marked the application totally without merit.
• High Court, Administrative Court: permission to seek judicial review was refused by a Deputy High Court Judge on 24 October 2016. The renewed application was dismissed by Mr Justice Ouseley.