Sharon Kofa, R (on the application of) v Oldham Metropolitan Bolton Council
[2024] EWHC 685 (Admin)
Hripsime Lake v Lancaster Magistrates Court & Anor
2 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2727 (Admin)
High Court
A woman tried to challenge a council tax bill in court. The judge said her arguments were wrong and she should have acted sooner. The judge also said her case was pointless and she should pay the council's costs for wasting their time. The judge didn't punish her for secretly recording the court hearing, but warned her that this was illegal.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Lake) renewed application for judicial review of Lancaster Magistrates' Court decisions regarding council tax liability.
- •First decision: Liability order made on 30 May 2022.
- •Second decision: Refusal to state a case on 12 September 2022.
- •Claimant represented herself, initially with a substantial volume of documentation.
- •Initial application refused by HHJ Davies on 5 June 2023, with directions for renewal.
- •Renewal hearing involved skeleton arguments and a McKenzie Friend for the claimant.
- •Claimant recorded the telephone hearing at Magistrates' Court.
- •Second defendant sought costs due to the frivolous nature of the claim.
Legal Principles
Time limit for judicial review applications under Part 54.5(1) CPR: promptly, but not later than 3 months.
Civil Procedure Rules
Local Authority's power to levy council tax comes from the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Liability for council tax is not dependent on a contract between the individual and the local authority.
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, reg 34 outlines procedure for liability orders.
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
Appeals on council tax amount or discounts go to the Valuation Tribunal.
Appeals to the High Court by way of case stated are under s. 28(1) Senior Courts Act 1981, based on legal error or exceeding jurisdiction.
Senior Courts Act 1981
CPR allows for discretion in conducting proceedings, including telephone hearings.
Civil Procedure Rules
Unauthorised recording of court proceedings is contempt of court.
CPR 54A, PD 7.5: Costs at renewal hearings usually not awarded to successful defendant, unless exceptional circumstances.
Civil Procedure Rule 54A, Practice Direction 7.5
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
Claim regarding liability order was out of time and lacked merit; claim regarding refusal to state a case lacked merit.
Claim certified as totally without merit.
Claim lacked legal basis and was frivolous; second defendant incurred unnecessary costs.
No further action taken on the unauthorized recording of the Magistrates' Court hearing.
While acknowledging it as contempt of court, the court chose not to pursue it further in this instance.
Costs application by the second defendant to be considered, following specified procedure.
Exceptional circumstances may justify costs award against claimant.
Similar Cases
Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 886 (Admin)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Bryce, R (on the application of) v The Ministry of Justice
[2023] EWHC 2778 (Admin)