Andy Mann Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v York Magistrates Court

A liability order for non-domestic rates may be based on a rating-list alteration taking retrospective effect where the statutory regulations permit that alteration. Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 does not itself prevent retrospective operation. An extract from the rating list may provide prima facie evidence of the relevant entry, leaving the ratepayer to challenge it if appropriate.

The existence of an alternative appeal by way of case stated does not automatically bar judicial review. The court retains a discretion to permit judicial review, particularly where no prejudice is shown and refusing relief would defeat a good claim because of an error in the form of proceedings.

Andy Mann Ltd occupied commercial premises from 1 May to 31 December 2018. The premises were added to the local non-domestic rating list in June 2019, with effect from 1 May 2018. Selby District Council subsequently obtained a liability order for unpaid rates from York Magistrates’ Court on 17 December 2019.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the premises could not attract rates under sections 42 and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 because they were not shown in the rating list during the period of occupation. It also raised procedural complaints concerning legal advice given to the magistrates. The central issues were whether judicial review was appropriate despite an alternative appeal by case stated, whether the rating list could operate retrospectively, and whether the hearing was procedurally unfair.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion to entertain judicial review despite the alternative remedy of appeal by way of case stated. That procedure was ordinarily preferable, but no objection or prejudice had been identified, the claimant had been directed towards judicial review by court staff, permission had been granted, and it would be undesirable for a potentially good claim to fail because of an error in procedural form (paras [43]-[44]).

2. Sections 42 and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 did not prevent retrospective alteration of the rating list. The Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 permitted alterations, including adding a hereditament omitted from the list, and provided for an effective date earlier than the alteration itself. There had been no challenge that the Regulations were ultra vires (paras [45]-[51]).

3. The magistrates were entitled to rely on the extract from the rating list as prima facie evidence of the recorded facts under the relevant enforcement regulations. The claimant could have challenged the underlying alteration, but did not do so. On the narrow legal issue advanced, the magistrates had not erred in law (paras [55]-[58]).

4. The court regarded transparency in the giving of legal advice and the provision of reasons as fundamental to a fair hearing. The relevant Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Direction required advice to be given or repeated in open court, with an opportunity for the parties to respond. On the facts, the advice was sufficiently clear and the claimant had been able to make his submissions. The procedural complaints therefore did not justify remittal (paras [22]-[37]).

• York Magistrates’ Court: On 17 December 2019, granted a liability order against the claimant for unpaid non-domestic rates and costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission for judicial review was granted on 7 May 2020. The substantive claim was dismissed.