Property Law ReportsRating: Non-domestic rates
First respondent failing to pay non-domestic rates over several financial years - appellant billing authority bringing complaint and applying for single liability order covering all amounts outstanding - judge refusing to make such an order - whether open to appellants to apply for a single liability order to include more than one financial year's liability - Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 - appeal allowedTower Hamlets London Borough Council v Merrick and another:Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court (Justice Stanley Burnton): 17 October 2001The first respondent (M) failed to pay the appellant billing authority the non-domestic rates due on his premises for the financial years April 1997 until April 2001.
The appellants brought a complaint against M, and requested that the court make a liability order, under the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, to cover all amounts outstanding.
The judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was not open to the appellants to apply for a single liability order in respect of more than one year's liability, and alternatively, that it would be unfair to include more than one year's liability in a single liability order.
The appellants appealed.
Part 3 of the regulations dealt with enforcement of ratepayers' liabilities.
Regulation 10(2) provided that 'a sum which has become payable to a billing authority under part 2 and which has not been paid shall be recoverable under a liability order, or in a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with regulations 11 to 21'.
M relied upon regulation 4 in part 2 of the regulations, which dealt with a billing authority's duty to serve demand notices on every ratepayer.
Regulation 4(2) provided 'different demand notices shall be served for different chargeable financial years'.
M submitted that the requirement meant that separate procedures were required for each financial year, and that the provisions in part 3 had to be interpreted in the light of regulation 4.Held: The appeal was allowed.Regulation 10(2) did not suggest that proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction had to be confined to a debtor's liability in respect of a single chargeable financial year.
It simply provided for the procedures that may be taken to recover a sum due to a billing authority.
In the case of proceedings in a competent court and, in the absence of any express or implied restrictions, part 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits a billing authority to include liabilities for non-domestic rates relating to more than one year and resulting from the service of more than one demand notice.
There was no equivalent to the language of regulation 4(1) and (2) in part 3 of the regulations.
As it was permissible for a joinder of claims for more than one financial year pursuant to regulation 10(2), it was difficult to see why the position should be different in proceedings for a liability order under the regulations.Convenience and the minimising of costs suggested that proceedings issued to recover liabilities in respect of more than one year should be permitted.
Furthermore, the subsequent provisions in the regulations confirmed that such proceedings were permissible, as in the case of regulation 13.
Regulation 13 enabled the court to make a single liability order in respect of more than one person and more than one amount outstanding.
That regulation did not require there to be any connection between the persons in respect of whom the order was made or the amount outstanding, other than that all the sums in question were due to the same billing authority.
The power conferred by regulation 13 was useful where a billing authority sought to enforce the liabilities of numerous debtors, as it avoided the magistrates' court.
It was difficult to believe that parliament could have conferred the wide-ranging power under regulation 13 while restricting liability orders in respect of an individual to a single year's rates.
Accordingly, it was open to the appellants to make an application for a single liability order to include more than one financial year's liability.
The judge had no discretion to make individual liability orders in respect of each financial year's liability.
He was obliged by regulation 12 to make a single order in respect of the total sum outstanding for rates for the years in question.Christopher Lundie (instructed by the solicitor to the Tower Hamlets London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; the first respondent appeared in person; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
No comments yet