London Borough of Camden Council v Saint Benedict's Land Trust Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Snowden |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 3576 (Ch) |
| Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2990 of 2018 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2019] EWHC 3576 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN MANCHESTER
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
On appeal from the Order of District Judge Obodai dated 22 February 2019
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, London EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Snowden
(VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER)
Case No: 2990 of 2018
Appeal No. CH-2019-000073
In the Matter of Saint Benedict's Land Trust Limited
And in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986
Zander Goss (instructed by Harrison Carter) for the Appellant
(solely in relation to an application to adjourn the hearing)
Tom Gosling (instructed by Greenhalgh Kerr Solicitors Ltd) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 18 December 2019
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
On Friday 6 December 2019 I handed down a judgment dismissing an appeal by Saint Benedict's Land Trust Limited (“SBLT”) against a decision of District Judge Obodai given on 22 February 2019: see [2019] EWHC 3370 (Ch). DJ Obodai had dismissed, with an order for costs to be paid by SBLT, the winding-up petition which had been presented against SBLT by London Borough of Camden Council (“LBC”). I also dismissed SBLT's appeal against DJ Obodai's determination that two applications (the “First Application” and the “Second Application”) which had been made in the course of the winding-up proceedings by SBLT were totally without merit.
After making her determination that the First and Second Applications had been totally without merit, DJ Obodai exercised her power under CPR 23.13(2) and CPR 3.11 PD 3C paras 3.11 and 4.11 to transfer the proceedings to a High Court Judge for consideration of whether an extended or general civil restraint order should be made against SBLT. This is my judgment on that aspect of the case together with matters consequential on the dismissal of the appeal.
The Factual Background to the Proceedings
In addition to her own findings that the First and Second Applications were totally without merit, DJ Obodai ordered consideration of whether there should be a civil restraint order made against SBLT against the background of a number of similar findings by other judges. I mentioned some of these in my earlier judgment, but I should now set out the history of these matters in greater detail.
SBLT was incorporated under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. It claims to carry on business for charitable purposes providing storage space for residents of Camden, including those who are in hostels. It is not, however, a charity registered with the Charity Commission under the Charities Act 2011.
SBLT's registered office is at 36–37 Chagford Street, London NW1 6EB. This is a similar address to that of a company operating under the name Harrison Carter which purports to carry on reserved legal activities under one of the exemptions in section 23 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Harrison Carter has acted for SBLT throughout these proceedings.
The story starts in April 2014 with liability orders for unpaid business rates being made by the Preston Magistrates Court against a company limited by guarantee called Augustine Housing Trust (“Augustine”). The relationship between Augustine and SBLT is unclear: it would seem that they may have shared common directors and they have been described in some documents as “sister” companies. SBLT was also originally known as Augustine Land Trust Limited before it changed its name to St Benedict's Land Trust Limited.
A winding up order in respect of Augustine was made in October 2014 on the application of Preston City Council (“PCC”), based upon the liability orders. An unsuccessful attempt was made by Augustine and SBLT to appeal that order: permission to appeal was refused by Charles Hollander QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 29 April 2015. An application was then made on 17 June 2015 to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal that refusal. Augustine was named as the appellant at the head of the appellant's notice, but the notice was signed by a Martin Evans on behalf of SBLT (under its then name of the Augustine Land Trust Limited). After much delay in progression of the appeal, the application was eventually refused and declared to be totally without merit by Patten LJ on 8 February 2019.
After initially failing to obtain permission to appeal the winding up order in relation to Augustine, in 2017, SBLT made an application to the Preston Magistrates Court to set aside the 2014 liability orders against Augustine. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 21 March 2018 for a determination by the Preston Magistrates Court of whether SBLT had standing to make such application.
SBLT made a last-minute attempt to adjourn or vacate that hearing, and when it failed, made an application to the Administrative Court for judicial review of the decision not to adjourn or vacate. On 21 March 2018, Nicklin J refused SBLT's application for judicial review and stated that the application was totally without merit.
The hearing on 21 March 2018 then went ahead and SBLT's application was dismissed with costs. SBLT then applied for judicial review of an alleged refusal by the Magistrates Court to provide it with an order stating the reasons for the decision made on 21 March 2018. That application was dismissed on 15 October 2018 by Andrew Thomas QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, who also stated that SBLT's application was totally without merit.
Notwithstanding that Andrew Thomas QC's order had stated in express terms that SBLT could not request that the decision be reconsidered at a hearing, SBLT did precisely that. On 4 December 2018 Martin Spencer J refused that application and stated it to be “frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court” and to be totally without merit. His written ruling of 4 December 2018 also indicated that as three applications had been made that were totally without merit, he would make a civil restraint order against SBLT.
By a letter dated 10 December 2018 from Harrison Carter, SBLT sought permission for a “leap-frog” appeal to the Supreme Court, and for the decision of 4 December 2018 to be reviewed. On 17 December 2018, Martin Spencer J refused the request for permission for an appeal to the Supreme Court and refused to vary his order of 4 December 2018, reiterating that SBLT's application had been totally without merit. However, he decided not to make a civil restraint order and indicated that he was prepared to give SBLT “a further chance”. He commented, however,
“…it is very likely that the court will make such an order if [SBLT] is deemed to have made any further applications which are totally without merit.”
Not deterred, SBLT then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Martin Spencer J's refusal to review his earlier order. That application was dismissed for failure to file an appeal bundle by Master Meacher on 29 May 2019, and an application to review that decision was then refused and declared to be totally without merit by Hickinbottom LJ on 12 August 2019. Hickinbottom LJ indicated that the only reason why he was not proceeding to consider a civil restraint order was that he treated the matter as a deemed application for review and not an application for review expressly made. He concluded,
“However, if any further meritless applications are made by [SBLT] to any court, this order can be prayed in aid of [a civil restraint] order.”
In the meantime, as I described in my earlier judgment, on 22 February 2019, DJ Obodai dismissed SBLT's First and Second Applications as being totally without merit and transferred the winding up proceedings to a High Court Judge for consideration of whether to make a civil restraint order.
SBLT did not seek permission to appeal from DJ Obodai herself in Manchester, but instead lodged an application at the High Court in London seeking permission to appeal on 15 March 2019. SBLT's application included an application for a stay of the orders for payment of costs, and a “suspension” of the orders declaring the First and Second Applications to have been totally without merit and ordering the matter to be transferred to a High Court Judge to consider the making of a civil restraint order.
The application for a stay and suspension was dismissed by Zacaroli J sitting in London on 19 March 2019. Zacaroli J stated that there was no evidence that payment of the costs would cause prejudice to SBLT or render its appeal nugatory, and that there was no basis upon which the court should “suspend” the other parts of the order.
On 26 March 2019, O'Farrell J, sitting in Manchester, made an order setting a hearing date of 21 May 2019 in Manchester for the consideration of the issue of whether a civil restraint order should be made. SBLT then applied on 30 April 2019, without notice to LBC or PCC, for that order to be varied or set aside.
On 17 May 2019, Martin Spencer J, sitting in Manchester, made an order vacating the hearing fixed for 21 May 2019 on the basis that if the orders made by DJ Obodai were set aside on appeal, there would be no basis for consideration of whether to make a civil restraint order. Martin Spencer J ordered that the hearing in relation to a civil restraint order should be relisted once the outcome of the appeal against the order of DJ Obodai was known.
LBC and PCC themselves then applied on 24 May 2019 on notice to SBLT for the order of Martin Spencer J to be set aside on the basis that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christine Harper v London Borough of Camden Council
...restraint order (the “GCRO”) against SBLT for the reasons which I set out in a reserved judgment handed down on the same day: see [2019] EWHC 3576 (Ch). In short, SBLT had engaged in an extraordinary series of meritless and abusive applications in its attempts to avoid the payment of NNDR.......