Hripsime Lake v Lancaster Magistrates Court & Anor [2023] EWHC 2727 (Admin)

[2023] EWHC 2727 (Admin)Case No CO/04649/2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISIONVenue Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9DJDate 02 November 2023
Before
Karen Ridge sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :HRIPSIME LAKE ClaimantLANCASTER MAGISTRATES COURTLANCASTER CITY COUNCILFirst DefendantSecond Defendant
Between
Hripsime LakeClaimantLancaster Magistrates Court & AnorDefendantMs Lake, the Claimant appeared in personMs P Najah (instructed by the Solicitor to Lancaster City Council) for the Second DefendantHearing Hearing dates: 13 October 2023- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -APPROVED JUDGMENTHigh Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCCDeputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge:
[1]This is the claimant’s renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against Lancaster Magistrates Court in relation to twodecisions relating to liability for the payment of Council Tax. The firstapplication for permission to bring a challenge to the making of a liability orderby the first defendant on 30 May 2022. The second prospective challenge is tothe first defendant’s refusal to state a case dated 12 September 2022.

The Proceedings to Date

[2]The second defendant brought proceedings in relation to unpaid council tax liabilities of the claimant in the Magistrates Court. An application for themaking of a liability order was heard on 30 May 2022 when the claimantappeared at a telephone hearing and opposed the making of the order. The orderwas duly made by the first defendant. Subsequently the claimant applied to thefirst defendant to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. This applicationwas refused by notice dated 12 September 2022.[3]The claimant then made application to this court seeking permission tocommence judicial review proceedings. The case has been characterised by thefiling of multitudinous documents, containing long narratives setting out thepurported basis upon which the challenges are to be brought. At the renewalhearing there are three separate bundles before the court, the core bundle runsto some 389 pages and there is a hearing bundle of 707 pages, with a separateauthority bundle of 48 pages. In addition, the claimant has provided five leverarch ring binders of documents. The documents filed are not proportionate tothe issues at stake, even making some allowance for the fact that the claimant isa litigant in person.[4]The matter was considered on the papers by HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as aHigh Court Judge on 5 June 2023. HHJ Davies refused the application forpermission and gave extensive case management directions in the event that theclaimant sought to renew her application. Those directions contain clearinstructions to the claimant, who has acted on her own behalf throughout, as towhat she would need to do in terms of clearly stating the basis on which she wasseeking to challenge the relevant decisions. HHJ Davies further pointed out thatinsofar as the claimant was seeking to challenge the liability order of 30 May2022, the claim has been made well outside the time limit imposed by Part54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, namely promptly, but in any event notlater than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. He suggestedthat an application for an extension of time should be considered if theapplication were to be renewed.[5]HHJ Davies concluded that the claim for review of first defendant’s certificateof refusal disclosed no legal basis for challenge. He indicated that it was notnecessary for him to go on to consider any apparent challenges to the liabilityorder since that could be done, if necessary, at any renewal hearing.[6]HHJ Davies further directed that, in the event of a renewed application, theclaimant should come to the renewal hearing prepared to deal with the question 7. High Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCC of what steps, if any, the court should take in relation to the claimant’s recordingof the telephone hearing before the Magistrates Court.

Events at the Renewal Hearing

[7]At this renewal hearing I have heard at length from Ms Lake as to her position in relation to both decisions. At the outset of the hearing Ms Lake applied to beassisted by her son as McKenzie Friend. That request was granted withoutopposition from the second defendant. The first defendant, as is usual in casesof this nature, indicated that it would take no part in proceedings havingpreviously filed an Acknowledgement of Service.[8]I indicated that I would deal with the issue of any alleged contempt of court byrecording of the telephone hearing before the Magistrates Court at the end ofthis hearing. As a preliminary issue I asked the second defendant to indicate itsposition in relation to the professional transcript of that recording. Ms Najahindicated that there was no objection to the transcript being accepted intoevidence, but she reserved her position on the question of contempt.[9]Both parties had filed skeleton arguments setting out their respective positions.Ms Najah confirmed that, whilst she had referred to an application to strike outthe proceedings for abuse of process, no formal application had been made. Iconfirmed that because this was a permission hearing and she was contendingthat permission should be refused and the application certified as totally withoutmerit, the application to strike out was somewhat otiose.

The Liability Order of 30 May 2022

[10]The challenge to the liability order is made well outside the time limit. At the renewal hearing the claimant said that she was not making any application toextend the time in which to bring a claim because she does not accept that theliability order was properly made or that the hearing was a properly constitutedcourt hearing. The claimant was put on notice of this requirement by HHJDavies and has not taken any steps to address this issue. In the circumstancesthe challenge must fail on this basis alone.[11]Even if application had been made and time extended, I am wholly satisfied thatthe claimant’s voluminous submissions disclose no respectable legal groundsfor challenge to the liability order.[12]The challenge relates the decision of the first defendant to make a liability orderpursuant to regulation 34 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement)Regulations 1992. The challenge appears to have two parts: firstly, a contentionthat the second defendant did not have any legal basis to charge council taxbecause there is no contract between the claimant and the second defendant andsecondly, the legal process and hearing were unfair.[13]A Local Authority’s ability to set and charge Council Tax comes from the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It provides Council tax in respect of dwellings. 15. High Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCC(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance withthis Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall bepayable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.(2) In this Part “billing authority” means— (a)in relation to England, a district council or London borough council, the CommonCouncil or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and (b)in relation to Wales, acounty council or county borough council.[14]This statute and accompanying statutory regulations set out a local authority’srights to set and demand council tax to fund services in their local area. Aperson’s liability to council tax is not dependent on, and does not require, theexistence of a contractual relationship between the local authority and theperson liable to pay tax. Any appeal to as to the amount of council taxdetermined or to discounts in relation to council tax or to whether or not anindividual is the correctly named individual on the council tax demand are madeto the Valuation Tribunal.[15]Unpaid council tax liabilities are pursued in the Magistrates Court pursuant toregulation 34 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement)Regulations 1992 which provides:
“34.—(1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable. (2) The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding…. … (6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.”
[16]The demand for payment was duly made in this case. The claimant does notappear to take issue with the amounts claimed. She contends that there is nostatutory basis on which the local authority can demand payment for counciltax. The claimant is plainly wrong. The legislation has been passed by thelegislature and has received royal assent. Any challenge to the operation of suchstatutes falls outside the ambit of this application for judicial review.[17]I am further satisfied that all legal requirements in relation to the issue of thesummons were properly complied with. The claimant contends that there areprocedural irregularities in the way in which the summons is issued. Thesummons was in the correct format and was sent by the second defendant in the 20. High Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCC name of Lancaster City Council. That summons contains the crest from HMCourts and Tribunal Service, it properly identifies the application for a liabilityorder and gives instructions as to the various options available. One of thoseoptions informs the individual that they can contest liability and appear at acourt hearing by telephone. The summons further sets out the facts which thelocal authority must prove before the making of an order. The notice furtherinforms the individual of matters which would not constitute a defence becausethey are matters which should be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.[18]The hearing was conducted by telephone and a representative from the seconddefendant was in attendance, together with the claimant. The claimant suggeststhat this was not a proper court hearing because it was not in person in acourtroom. However, the Civil Procedure Rules provide a wide discretion tocourts as to how they can exercise discretion in conducting proceedings andexercising case management powers in arranging hearings.[19]It is within the rules for hearings to be conducted by telephone in cases wherethe interests of justice are served and access to justice is not curtailed. Indeed,there are likely to be cases in which access to justice is facilitated for some courtusers by the use of telephone hearings in cases where there would be difficultiesin attending court. Given the nature and type of proceedings here, I am satisfiedthat it was entirely proper to conduct the hearing by telephone, the claimant wasnot placed at any disadvantage in putting her case and it was a proportionate useof technology.[20]I have read the transcript and it is apparent that the claimant was provided withample opportunity to put her grounds for contesting the making of an order. Theclaimant confirmed that the hearing lasted for 27 minutes. The MagistratesCourt Legal Advisor properly provided assistance by informing her as to theprocedure and that she would need to convince the court that there was a genuinereason for not paying the council tax due. The claimant confirmed that she hadreceived the summons and said that she did not see why she was being dealtwith in the Magistrates Court because she has never been charged with acriminal offence. The court advisor interjects on a number of occasions to seekto re-focus Ms. Lake’s submissions and to enable her to provide reasons for theliability order not being made.[21]The local authority representative confirms the amounts of unpaid council taxdue. He outlines the option of payment by instalments and goes on to set outpossible recovery action in the event that a liability order is made. At this pointMs Lake contends that there is no contractual obligation between herself andthe council in relation to the tax, a point pursued before this court. There is thenan exchange between one of the Magistrates and Ms Lake. Ms Lake appears toaccept that she used to pay her council tax and then suggests that she has notpaid later bills because “they are not my bills”.[22]There are a number of further exchanges before the Magistrates retire and thenreturn to announce their decision. The liability order was made as requested.Having regard to the transcript it is clear that the claimant was provided with afair and reasonable opportunity to put her case. The second defendant hadestablished that the property was subject to council tax, that a bill and reminder 26. High Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCC had been sent to the claimant and that the tax remained unpaid. In thosecircumstances the order was properly made.[23]The claimant’s various submissions reveal a number of objections to thepayment of council tax, none of which have any basis in law. Her claim to belawfully withholding council tax on the basis that it is unused for unspecifiedpurposes, purposes such as the covid vaccination programme to which she doesnot agree, have no legal basis. This challenge is completely unmeritorious, andpermission is refused.

The challenge to the refusal to state a case

[24]An appeal to the High Court by way of case stated is made under s. 28(1) Senior Courts Act 1981. It is only available on the grounds that the order of the lowercourt was wrong in law or in excess of its jurisdiction.[25]Following the making of the liability order, the claimant submitted a 212-pagedocument to the first defendant with her request for a statement of case. Thefirst defendant refused the application on the basis that the application did notdisclose any valid question of law or jurisdiction or the erroneous finding offact. This is unsurprising given that the arguments which I have dealt withabove and dismissed as having no legal foundation appear in the request. Assuch the first defendant stated that the application was frivolous in its opinionand certified that application refused.[26]The claimant’s document setting out her request does not contain any details asto how the claimant considered the case to be wrong in law or outside thejurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. It was without any legal basis and the firstdefendant properly refused to state a case as requested. In my view it wasproperly characterised as frivolous. Therefore, the challenge to the refusal tostate a case is wholly without merit and permission is refused.

The Totally Without Merit application

[27]The second defendant asked that I certify the claim as being totally without merit. I explained the request to Ms. Lake and any potential consequences interms of the future grant of a civil restraint order in the event that otherapplications are so certified. The claim in relation to both challenges disclosesno basis in law for bringing such proceedings. The second defendant has beenput to the expense of defending a frivolous claim. I am satisfied that itappropriate to certify the claim as totally without merit.

The Recording of the Magistrates Court Hearing

[28]The claimant freely accepted that she had recorded the telephone hearing before the Magistrates. She has produced a transcript of that hearing undertaken byprofessional transcribers. The transcript begins with the court legal advisorasking the complainant to identify herself and explaining that they are callingfrom Lancaster Magistrates Court. The advisor introduces the seconddefendant’s representative and informs the claimant that a liability order is beingsought. At no point in the proceedings is the claimant informed that she must 33. High Court approved Judgment: R(Lake) v LMC and LCC not record the proceedings. She is not asked to confirm that she is not recordingproceedings as would be usual with court telephone hearings and she is notinformed of the implications and consequences of undertaking an unauthorisedrecording.[29]After considering the above facts I indicated to Ms.Lake and Ms. Najah that Idid not intend to take any further action in relation to the telephone recording.Ms. Lake was informed that unauthorised recording of court proceedings is acontempt of court and a matter which the court takes seriously.

The Order and costs

[30]Following this judgment, it is necessary for me to deal with the issue of costs. I note that the order of HHJ Stephen Davies was silent as to matter of costs. Thesecond defendant has sought its costs of preparing the acknowledgment ofservice form. In addition, a schedule of costs has been prepared claiming costsin the sum of £6,378.40. I note that those costs include the costs of the hearing.[31]Civil Procedure Rule 54A, Practice Direction 7.5 provides that a defendant whoattends and successfully resists the grant of permission at a renewal hearing willnot usually recover from the claimant the costs of attending the hearing. Acourt, in considering an award of costs against an unsuccessful claimant at apermission hearing, should only depart from the general principles above if it isconsidered that there are exceptional circumstances for doing so. The court hasa broad discretion on the facts of the case when considering whether there areexceptional circumstances which justify an award of costs against the claimant.Paragraph 25.4.5.5 of The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2023provides examples of where this may be appropriate. Administrative CourtJudicial Review Guide 2023 - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary[32]I would ask that Ms Najah to prepare a draft order for my approval. The ordershould contain provision that the second defendant shall file and serve within 7days their submissions on the issue of costs; the claimant shall have a further 7days to file and serve any response to the costs application and the seconddefendant shall file any reply within 7 days thereafter. Each submission,response and reply shall be limited to 3 pages. The court shall determine theissue of costs in writing unless it considers a further hearing is necessary.[33]I would ask that Ms Najah to draw up the requisite draft order and send it to the Administrative Court Office for my approval. 31 October 2023 10:39 Page 7