Saint Benedict's Land Trust Limited v Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

A Part 8 claim seeking a declaration concerning charitable relief from national non-domestic rates is not inherently an abuse of process merely because related liability proceedings are pending before magistrates. The issue may constitute a private law question, although the court must consider the overlap, delay, alternative remedies and the proper forum.

Substantial factual disputes do not automatically require strike-out for misuse of Part 8. The proportionate response may be conversion to Part 7 or appropriate directions. Where magistrates’ proceedings were commenced first and concern the same liability, the High Court may stay the declaratory proceedings pending their determination and any appeal.

The claimant sought declarations concerning its entitlement to charitable relief from national non-domestic rates for a hereditament and, more generally, the lawfulness of rating authorities issuing summonses. The defendant applied to strike out the Part 8 claim, relying on abuse of process, the availability of judicial review and the existence of related liability-order proceedings before King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court.

The claimant contended that the entitlement to relief was a private law issue and that the Part 8 claim should proceed. The central issues were whether the claim was abusive, whether Part 8 was appropriate given factual disputes, and what case-management order should be made.

1. The strike-out application was refused. The first declaration substantially coincided with the proceedings before the magistrates, and those proceedings were the appropriate first forum under the protocol referred to in R (Public Health England) v Harlow District Council [2021] 4 W.L.R. 65.
2. Bringing a Part 8 claim for a declaration concerning entitlement to charitable relief was not, of itself, an abuse of process. The issue was capable of being a private law matter. The course adopted in Merton LBC v Nuffield Health [2023] 3 W.L.R. 13 supported that conclusion, although in that case the rates had been paid and no liability proceedings were pending.
3. Delay beyond the usual judicial review period and the availability of an alternative route through the magistrates’ proceedings were relevant case-management factors. The claimant had offered no cogent explanation for commencing parallel proceedings seven months after the summons proceedings began. The principles in Carter Commercial Developments v Bedford BC [2001] EWHC Admin 669 were relevant to that assessment.
4. The dispute was not confined to law. There were substantial factual disputes about the claimant’s status as rateable occupier and the purpose and use of the hereditament. Those disputes did not justify strike-out for failure to comply with CPR 8.1(2); if necessary, the claim could proceed as if commenced under Part 7. Strike-out would be disproportionate.
5. The proper order was to stay the Business and Property Courts proceedings pending determination of the magistrates’ proceedings and any appeal. The claimant could then decide whether to pursue the wider declarations, which might require transfer to the Administrative Court.

The judgment records related liability-order proceedings before King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court, commenced before the Part 8 claim. The Business and Property Courts proceedings were stayed pending determination of those proceedings and any appeal.