IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CO Ref: CO/

/2014

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

BETWEEN:

XXXX XXXXX
Appellant
and
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL
Respondent

CHRONOLOGY

1.

The billing authority sent a Council Tax reminder dated 12.9.12 in respect of a
missed instalment which was due on 1.9.13. It warned that instalments would be
withdrawn if the account not brought up to date, and if following that the balance
was not paid immediately, a summons would be issued (incurring costs) without
further notice.

2.

Neither demand was met so on 17.10.12 a summons was served on the Appellant to
appear before the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 to answer the said complaint. It was
stated alternatively that all further proceedings would be stopped if the amount
outstanding including summons costs was paid before the date of the hearing.

3.

Payment was made on 17.10.12 which included the outstanding Council Tax liability
and an amount in respect of reasonable costs incurred (albeit a lesser sum than was
stated on the summons as the costs element). The authority was notified by letter
under cover of an email and sought whether it would proceed to obtain a court order

to enable enforcement of the element of costs which the council may have
considered was unpaid.
4.

On 17.10.12 the billing authority acknowledge receipt of the letter, and advised that
it had been forwarded to its Court Enforcement Officers to deal with. There was no
further response in relation to the issues raised so assumed it would proceed to
obtain a liability order.

5.

On 26.10.12 the Magistrates Court was notified that the liability had been settled
and advised that unless the application for a liability order was withdrawn the
complaint would be defended at the hearing of 2.11.12. A summary accompanied the
letter to support several documents asserting that the sum sought by the billing
authority was an unreasonable claim for costs.

6.

On 28.10.12 an assessment of costs incurred in pursuance of the defence was

submitted to the Magistrates Court.

7.

The complaint was heard in the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 where the bench
granted a liability order in respect of the costs which the billing authority claimed
were incurred.

8.

On 5.11.12 the Magistrates Court was contacted by email expressing the wish to
appeal the courts decision to grant a liability order and request to have details
forwarded of the relevant person to correspond with on the matter.

9.

The court responded in a letter dated 6.11.12 advising that a Liability Order could
only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either a case stated on
a point of law or a judicial review and strongly suggested taking legal advice.

10.

On 16.11.12 the court was contacted by email in regards appealing by way of a case
stated and to advise that seeking legal advice was not viable because of
unemployment and having no entitlement to benefit.

11.

The court responded by email on 19.11.12 and clarified some points raised and
advised that in certain circumstances it is possible to apply for fee remission.

12.

On 20.11.12 the court was contacted by email querying the relevant Criminal
Procedure Rules and again on the 21.11.12 to obtain particulars of the Liability
Order hearing as were required to complete the prescribed form to state a case.

13.

The court responded in two separate emails on 21.11.12. The first advised it could
not provide assistance with the appeal and the second, advising that case references
were not allocated in Council Tax cases.

14.

On 22.11.12 the application to state a case for an appeal to the high court was served
on both parties, that is, the billing authority and Magistrates' Court, within the time
limits laid out in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

15.

The Deputy Justices Clerk acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated
22.11.12 and advised that once the documentation had been considered further
contact would be made.

16.

There was no communication and on 28.12.12 an attempt to contact the Deputy

Justices Clerk was made by email, however, a 'delivery failure' notice was
generated and returned. An attempt was made under advice to contact the Justices'
Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire for which there was no response. Further
attempts to make contact on 10.1.13 were also unsuccessful in both cases.

17.

The court made contact on 14.1.13 where it transpired that the Deputy Justices'
Clerk who had been dealing with the appeal had left HMCTS at the end of 2012. The
Legal Team Manager stated in his email that he would make enquiries into what was
happening with the application and update as soon as possible.

18.

The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South
Yorkshire, who in a letter dated 24.1.13 advised that the Justices require
recognizance to be entered into in the sum of 500 and outlined the conditions of
recognizance.

19.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted on 6.2.13 by email with the billing authority and
Grimsby Magistrates Courts Legal Team Manager copied in. An attached letter to
the Justices Clerk dated 5.2.13 highlighted that the recognizance should be set at a
level which does not deny a person access to justice and that the proposed sum

effectively would. Alternative remedies were suggested, which in the case of the
court, was to set aside the liability order, and for the billing authority, to apply for
the order to be quashed.
20.

On 8.2.13 the billing authority replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the
Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it was correctly obtained. This was
disputed in a letter dated 14.2.13, on the grounds that the application should have
ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs
reasonably incurred by the authority was paid.

21.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted twice by email in February 2013, once on the 19th
and again on the 26th to prompt a response to the letter dated 5.2.13.

22.

There was no communication from the Justices Clerk and on 23.3.13 the
Administrative Court Office was contacted by letter to make preliminary enquiries
about a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case for an appeal to the
High Court.

23.

The Justices' Clerk was again contacted by email on 27.3.13 to prompt a response to
the letter dated 5.2.13, but the concerns raised regarding the recognizance were
never addressed.

24.

A Pre-Action letter dated 29.4.13 was sent to the Justices Clerk advising that it was
intended that an application would be made for permission to bring judicial review
proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case.

25.

The application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was submitted
on 31.5.13 as a consequence of there being no response from the Justices Clerk in
relation to the 5.2.13 and 29.4.13 letters. Similarly, there had been no response from
the billing authority to the 14.2.13 letter.

26.

Sealed copies of the judicial review application (seal date 12.6.13) were received on
17.6.13, along with directions to proceed with the claim.

27.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 18.6.13 to establish whether the
court was willing to accept service by email and if so, to specify the address to
which it must be sent.

28.

On 18.6.13, sealed copies of the judicial review claim forms and accompanying
documents were served on the defendant and interested parties in accordance with
the relevant Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of confirmation from the Justices'
Clerk, a hard copy was posted in addition to that sent electronically in anticipation of
the court accepting service by e-mail.

29.

Justices' Clerk contacted by email on 19.6.13 to confirm whether the Certificate of

Service should be lodged in respect of documents served at Grimsby Magistrates'
court or those served at Doncaster Magistrates' court (where the Justices Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire was based).

30.

There was no confirmation from the Justices Clerk in regards the location, so on
19.6.13, the Certificate of Service was lodged in the Administrative Court in respect
of documents served at Grimsby Magistrates' court.

31.

Confirmation received on 16.7.13 that the Magistrates' Court had lodged the
Acknowledgement of Service (dated 8.7.13) with the Administrative Court, in
regards the claim for judicial review. The defendant Court gave an undertaking that
it would serve the draft case within fourteen days of the date of the
acknowledgement of service.
Note: It was not until this document was lodged that it was made known by the
Clerk that the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the
amount could have been considered by the court had an arrangement been made to
appear before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance.

32.

A letter sent by the billing authority dated 19.7.13 advised that the disputed court
costs were suspended, and dependent on the outcome of the proceedings, would
either be withdrawn or remain outstanding with the council.

33.

The draft case, together with a statement of the delay for its production, both dated
22.7.13, were received on 30.7.13. These were accompanied with a covering letter
dated 24.7.13, advising that any written representations upon its content, would, in
accordance with rule 77(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, require submitting
within 21 days from receipt of the draft case.

34.

On 19.8.13, representations upon the content of the draft case were served together
with letter advising that the Court had (from the latest day on which representations
may be made) 21 days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981. At the same time, a copy was served on the billing
authority.

35.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 3.9.13 and a request made for a copy
to be sent of the liability order (as supporting document), stamped by the court, for
the purposes of complying with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Note: Practice Direction 52E requires that within 10 days of the court serving the
Case Stated (anticipated on or before 10.9.13) the appellant's notice along with
supporting documents require lodging with the appeal court.

36.

An order from the High Court in the matter of the application for judicial review was
received on 6.9.13. The administrative court required updating with what had
happened after the defendant court undertook to serve a draft of a Case stated within
14 days of the Acknowledgement of service. A reply was sent the same day and
copies sent to the interested parties stating that the draft Case had been served and
representations made on the draft case.

37.

On 9.9.13, the billing authority as "interested party" to the judicial review claim
submitted representations expressing that it fully supported the defendant courts
submission.

38.

The administrative court wrote on 12.11.13 proposing that the judicial review claim
be withdrawn because there no longer appeared a need for further action on the part
of the High Court as the draft Case had been served.

39.

On 20.11.13, the administrative court was notified of the wish to withdraw the
judicial review claim.
Note: The final signed Case anticipated on or before 10.9.13 had not been served.
There had been no acknowledgement of neither the written representations made
upon the content of the draft case nor letter advising of the time limits stipulated in
the relevant rules to serve the finalised Case.

40.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of email on 10.1.14
enquiring into why it was that the justices had not served the Case in accordance
with the relevant rules.
Note: In accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, service of
the final signed Case had overrun the 10.9.13 deadline by 4 months. There was no
response.

41.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted again by letter under cover of an email on 13.2.14
to arrange a recognizance hearing in order that the appropriateness and/or the
amount may be considered and agreed.
Note: No response from the Clerk meant second guessing why the case had not been
delivered and assumed the reason may have been because the judicial review claim
only prompted the court to give an undertaking to serve the draft case only and not
deliver the final case until recognizance had been agreed.

42.

There was no communication from the Justices Clerk in the matter of the
recognizance so on 3.3.14 contacted the Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrates
Court by phone and spoke to the Justices Clerk's assistant (Legal Admin Team
Leader) where it was confirmed that a message would be left for the Justices Clerk
to make contact that day.

43.

Telephoned the Court on the morning of 5.3.14 as there was still no contact and
spoke to a team member from the Judicial Support Unit who ensured a message
would reach the Justices Clerk who was due in later. A second call was made on the
afternoon of 5.3.14 where a different member of the Judicial Support Unit took the
call and confirmed that the message had been passed on but the Clerk was again not
at the premises so unavailable.

44.

The Clerk to Justices made contact on 6.3.14, stating in an email that either that day
or the following (7.3.14) the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps)
would be set out and communicated in writing.
Note: There was no communication from the Justices Clerk advising on the next
steps which on top of the obstruction already encountered seemed to confirm that
Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrates Court was a rogue unit.

45.

Telephoned the court again on 19.3.14 (for the record) to be told again that the Clerk
was not at the premises.
Note: Similarly there was no communication in response to this call from the
Justices Clerk advising on the next steps.

46.

Telephoned again on 28.3.14 (as a formality) to be advised that the Clerk was not
available but would be left a message.
Note: No response or any communication on this occasion.

47.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of an email on 22.4.14
requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section
111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980.
Note: There has neither been a Certificate of refusal to state a case provided nor any
reply to this communication to date.

48.

The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 9.7.14 to enquire into whether Her
Majestys Courts and Tribunals Service had any arrangements in place to restrict the
Appellants contact with Humber and South Yorkshire, and if so in what way.
Note: There has been no reply to this communication to date.

49.

On 2.9.14 a judicial complaint was submitted to the relevant Advisory Committee

(the AC) with the grounds of complaint cited as perverting the course of justice.
The events outlined up to paras 48 in this Chronology were provided as evidence.
Note: There has been no reply to this communication to date. It is understood that
the Secretary to the AC for the Humber to whom the complaint was addressed, and
against whom allegations were made is also the Justices Clerk involved in the
present case.

50.

On 14.5.15 an enquiry was made with the Magistrates HR Team to establish why
there had not been acknowledgement regarding the complaint. The AC Secretary
was not contacted as it was deemed that eliciting a response would be unlikely.
However, there was no advantage gained, as the HR Team merely forwarded the
email to the Committee Secretary.
Note: The Committee Secretary did not reply.

51.

On 25.6.15 concerns were raised with the Head of the Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office (JCIO) who responded on 29.6.15 stating that she had
contacted the Committee Secretary in the hope she would make contact directly. It
was suggested complaining to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman
(JACO) if the handling of the complaint remained unsatisfactory.
Note: The Committee Secretary did not reply.

52.

JACO was contacted expressing the wish to escalate a complaint, first on 8.8.15 and
again on the 19.8.15 after receiving no acknowledgement.
Note: There has been no reply from the Ombudsman to date.

53.

JACO eventually replied in a letter dated 14.12.15 in which an apology was given
for the 4 month delay in responding. The Ombudsmans remit was also set out, some
of which permitted him to consider the delay in investigating the AC complaint
submitted more than a year earlier on 2.9.14.

54.

On 18.12.15 permission was given to JACOs Office to disclose the complaint and
correspondence to the AC and confirmed that the AC had not responded to any
correspondence about the matter and the case still unresolved requesting therefore
that the Ombudsman consider the process by which the AC handled the matter so
far. JACOs Office stated in an email sent on 22.12.15 that the complaint file would
be requested from the AC and an update given after it had been received and
considered.

55.

JACO made contact on 23.2.16 informing the Appellant that the complaint file had
been obtained from the AC and apologised for the delay that was down to the
significant amount of time obtaining it. It transpired that the AC had three letters on
file that were sent to the Appellant in response to his correspondence to them (AC),
JCIO and JACO. Though the Appellant had not received the letters when allegedly
sent, he has had possession since JACO attached copies (23.2.16).

56.

The first letter dated 16.9.14 which is claimed to have been sent in response to the
Judicial complaint (2.9.14) had been a letter dismissing the complaint as it did not

raise a question of misconduct. It further stated that a certificate of refusal to state a

case was not issued by the Justices because they did state a case for the consideration
of the Administrative Court and the final case has been sent to the Appellant.
Note: The Appellant received neither the letter nor the final case referred to in that
letter. Moreover, there was no copy of the case stated sent by JACO presumably
because the complaint file obtained from the AC did not contain the document.
57.

The second and third letters claimed to have been sent were in connection with the
Judicial Office and then JCIO prompting a response from the AC and were dated
29.5.15 and 6.7.15 respectively. Both copies state: This matter was responded to by
the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014 and I enclose herewith a
further copy of that reply.
Note: The Appellant received neither of these letters, consequently the 16.9.14 letter
that was never received was claimed to have been sent on three occasions.

58.

On 25.2.16 the Appellant contacted the Justices' Clerk by email to advise her that he
had not received and was unaware of the letters she claimed to have sent, dated
16.9.14, 29.5.15, 6.7.15 and the final case stated referred to in the 16.9.14 letter. She
was also advised that JACO had sent copies of the three letters, though not one of
the case stated, and would therefore like that sent in order that the Appellant may
proceed with his application to the High Court
Note: The Justices' Clerk has never replied to or acknowledged this correspondence.

59.

On 13.3.16 the Appellant contacted the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about the
25.2.16 email that had not been responded to by the Justices' Clerk. The MoJ
responded on 13.4.16 with a message saying that the Justices' Clerk apologised for
the delay in responding and for not arranging for an update that she was dealing with
the email. It was confirmed that the correspondence would be responded to by no
later than 15.4.16 after reviewing the file to give full consideration to the matter
raised.
Note: The Justices' Clerk has not yet replied.