Defendants convicted of animal cruelty and disqualified from owning animals - local authority seeking injunction to enter land and remove animals still held - court having no jurisdiction to make order sought

Worcestershire County Council v Tongue and others: CA (Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Martin Nourse): 17 February 2004

The three defendants, who ran six cattle farms, were convicted of cruelty to animals contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and disqualified from having custody of any animal other than cats and dogs for the rest of their lives.

They failed to dispose of their livestock and were convicted of breaching the disqualifying orders.

The local authority that had brought the prosecution sought an injunction permitting it to enter the defendants' land in order to remove their cattle.

Mr Justice Neuberger (see [2003] Gazette, 16 October, 39) dismissed the application.

The authority appealed.

Roger Henderson QC and David Watson (instructed by Worcestershire County Council Legal Department, Worcester) for the local authority; Timothy Clarke (instructed by Sampson & Co, Redditch) for the defendant David Tongue; the defendants Stephen Tongue and Harold Tongue in person.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that although there was jurisdiction for the civil courts to grant an injunction at the suit of a local authority acting pursuant to section 222(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to restrain a breach of the criminal law, it did not follow that the court had jurisdiction to grant the local authority any order that was intended to prevent the continuation of a breach of the criminal law, even though the local authority brought the proceedings on the basis that it considered that to be expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area; that under the existing statutory provisions the local authority's duty to enforce the law on animal welfare did not provide it with sufficient interest to obtain the relief sought; and that, accordingly, the court did not have jurisdiction to make the order.

Council tax - application for liability order made more than six years after date tax set but fewer than six years from date of service of demand for payment - tax only becoming 'due' on service of demand so justices having jurisdiction to grant liability order

Regentford Ltd v Thanet District Council: QBD (Mr Justice Lightman): 18 February 2004

A local authority set the council tax for a taxpayer's dwelling for the tax year 1996/97 on 22 February 1996 but did not make a demand for payment for that year until 2 October 2002.

In January 2003 the authority applied to the magistrates' court for a liability order.

The court granted the order.

The taxpayer appealed by way of case stated on the ground that the tax had became 'due' on 22 February 1996 and that, since by regulation 34(3) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 no application could be made for a liability order in respect of council tax after a period of six years from the date on which tax had become due, the justices had acted in excess of jurisdiction.

Nicholas Fairbank (instructed by Marsden Douglas, Cliftonville) for the taxpayer; Tim Mould (instructed by the Solicitor, Thanet District Council, Margate) for the authority.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that liability to council tax required a demand by the authority before it could be transformed into a duty to pay; that the tax had therefore only become 'due' on 2 October 2002 when the demand had been served; and that, since that was less than six years before the date of the authority's application, the justices had acted within their jurisdiction in making the order.