Soor v London Borough of Redbridge

A suspended committal order for unpaid council tax is unlawful where the repayment period is excessive. The enforcing court must conduct an adequate means enquiry and decide whether non-payment resulted from wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Bankruptcy may affect whether particular liabilities are bankruptcy debts, especially liabilities crystallising before discharge, but trusteeship does not give a bankrupt indefinite protection from enforcement. Where the relevant bankruptcy and liability periods have not been properly examined, the committal decision should be quashed and remitted for rehearing.

The appellant challenged by way of case stated a decision of North East London Justices sitting at Barkingside Magistrates’ Court. The justices committed him to prison for 90 days, suspended on payment of council tax arrears at £100 per month.

The arrears concerned council tax for several financial periods. The appellant relied on an alleged bankruptcy in 2006, disputed his means, and contended that the justices had failed to conduct a proper enquiry and had imposed an excessive repayment period. The central questions concerned the effect of bankruptcy on enforcement and whether the committal order was lawful.

1. The committal decision was quashed and the matter remitted to the magistrates for rehearing. The repayment period required by the order was excessive and therefore unlawful.
2. The justices were entitled to reject the appellant’s account of his means and to find that he had culpably neglected to pay. The challenges based on perversity, insufficient enquiry and failure to accept his employer’s letter were rejected.
3. The word “obligation” in section 382(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 could not be given so broad a meaning that a bankrupt trustee obtained indefinite protection from enforcement of liabilities arising from the trusteeship, including after discharge.
4. It was nevertheless arguable that a specific council tax liability arising from the trusteeship could be a bankruptcy debt if it had crystallised before bankruptcy, or if it concerned a pre-bankruptcy period but crystallised during or after the bankruptcy. Those observations were tentative and academic on the existing state of the evidence.
5. The magistrates were directed to establish when the appellant was discharged from bankruptcy and to consider which liabilities arose thereafter from his trusteeship. They were also to decide whether non-payment of the later liabilities resulted from wilful refusal or culpable neglect, and, if appropriate, impose a fresh order with a repayment period commensurate with his means and not excessive.
6. Following R (Broadhurst) v Sheffield Justices [2000] CO/1114/2000, a repayment period exceeding six years was too long; even five years had long been regarded as excessive, while three years was unassailable.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, the magistrates’ committal decision was quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing.
2. Barkingside Magistrates’ Court: The justices had committed the appellant to prison for 90 days, suspended on payment of council tax arrears at £100 per month.