Hripsime Lake v Lancaster Magistrates Court & Anor

A liability to pay council tax arises under statute and does not depend on a contract between the billing authority and the taxpayer. Unpaid council tax may be pursued before a magistrates’ court under regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. A telephone hearing is lawful where it preserves access to justice and gives the parties a fair opportunity to present their cases. Judicial review of a liability order brought outside the prompt three-month period requires an application for an extension of time. A case stated appeal is confined to error of law or excess of jurisdiction. An application advancing no arguable legal basis may properly be refused and certified totally without merit.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning a liability order made by Lancaster Magistrates’ Court for unpaid council tax and the court’s subsequent refusal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The liability order was made on 30 May 2022 following a telephone hearing. The refusal to state a case was dated 12 September 2022.

On the papers, HHJ Stephen Davies refused permission and directed the claimant to address, among other matters, delay and the legal grounds of challenge. At the renewed hearing, the claimant relied on the absence of any contractual relationship with the council and alleged procedural unfairness. The central issues were whether either decision disclosed an arguable public-law error and whether the claim should be certified totally without merit.

1. Liability order. The challenge was brought outside the time limit in Part 54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The claimant had not applied for an extension of time. The challenge therefore failed on delay alone.
2. In any event, the challenge disclosed no respectable legal ground. The statutory power to levy and collect council tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 does not depend on a contractual relationship. Disputes concerning the amount of council tax, discounts or the identity of the liable person fall within the statutory valuation tribunal regime.
3. Under regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, the magistrates’ court must make a liability order where it is satisfied that the sum has become payable and remains unpaid. The summons and hearing complied with the relevant requirements. A telephone hearing was permissible and, on the evidence, gave the claimant a fair and reasonable opportunity to present her case without disadvantage.
4. Refusal to state a case. Under section 28(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a case stated appeal is available only for an error of law or excess of jurisdiction. The claimant’s lengthy request identified no such question. The refusal was therefore proper, and the application was correctly characterised as frivolous.
5. Both proposed challenges were wholly without merit. The claim was certified totally without merit. The issue of costs was reserved for written submissions under directions limiting each submission, response and reply to three pages.
6. The court also stated that unauthorised recording of court proceedings is a contempt of court, but decided to take no further action concerning the recording made by the claimant.

The judgment itself records an earlier paper determination by HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court Judge, on 5 June 2023, when permission was refused and case-management directions were given. The present court refused the renewed application.