R v Croydon Justices, ex parte Lefore Holdings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] EWCA Civ J0319-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 19 March 1980 |
[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-4
Lord Justice Lawton
Lord Justice Waller
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal From the High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
MR G. CLARKE (instructed by W. G. R.. Saunders & Son) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR S. BROWN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) was Amicus Curiae.
REVISED
On the 7th October, 1979, the applicants, Lefore Holdings Ltd., applied to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court for leave to apply for a judicial review with the object of obtaining a Mandamus against the Justices for Croydon. That application was refused; the same day, they appealed against the refusal to this Court. This Court heard that application ex parte and granted leave to apply. We have been informed by Mr Clarke, on behalf of the applicants, that on the occasion of the refusal, the Court directed that the motion in respect of which leave was required, should be heard by this Court. This Court clearly has jurisdiction to hear a motion in those circumstances, having regard to its own decision in the case of The Queen v. Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex parte the Amalgamated Engineering Union which is reported in (1966) 2 Queen's Bench, at page 21.
The matter arises out of an application for a Distress Warrant against Lefore Holdings Ltd. in respect of their rateable occupation of some waste ground at the rear of premises in Croydon. The allegation was that they had been in rateable occupation of that waste ground for approximately a year - namely, from September 1977 to September 1978. The applicants claimed that they had not been in rateable occupation. When the Summonses came on for hearing in the Magistrates Court at Croydon on the 18th October, 1978, they appeared by counsel and called evidence to show that they had not been in rateable occupation. We have been informed, and accept for the purposes of this motion, that that evidence was not contested.
There was a subsidiary point in the case, namely if they had been in rateable occupation, when such occupationhad come to an end.
We have been informed, and it seems to be a fact, that the rating authority accepted that the occupation - if there were any - had come to an end on the 8th May, 1978, when the National Westminster Bank took over the piece of waste ground as tenants of the London Borough of Croydon.
At the end of the hearing on the 18th October, 1978, the Chairman of the Bench said that it would be necessary to consult their Senior Clerk who had not been in Court when the case was being heard, and as a result the case would be adjourned. The adjournment was until the 22nd November, 1978. On that day, the Chairman of the Bench announced the finding of the Justices that the applicants, Lefore Holdings Ltd., had had, or could have had, beneficial use of the land in question, and that as a result of the concession made by the rating authority, the Magistrates had decided to issue a Distress Warrant in the sum of £240.26p together with costs at £3.11p.
The applicants were aggrieved by that finding and as a result, by a Notice dated 8th December, 1978, they applied to the Magistrates to state a case. Their contention, so we have been told, was that the applicants had not at any material time been in possession of land which was of some use, value or benefit to them, and that there was no evidence before the Magistrates on which they could so find. Accordingly, so the submission went, there had been no rateable occupation.
We have been told, and again we accept for the purposes of this motion, that at the hearing on the 18th October, 1978, the only contested issue was whether the evidence called by the applicants, and not disputed by the rating authority,had shown any rateable occupation. It is against that background that we have to consider the application for a Case to be Stated.
The relevant parts of the application are these: "Now Lefore Holdings Ltd., being dissatisfied or aggrieved with your determination upon the hearing of the said information as being wrong in law, thereby pursuant to the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, Section 87, apply to you to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and grounds of such your determination including evidence upon which the Justices made their findings of fact for the opinion thereon of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice".
We have been told by Mr Clarke, on behalf of the applicants, that whoever drafted that Notice did so using a precedent in Oke's Magisterial Formulist, 1979 Edition - and the precedent which was followed was numbered 41. That precedent is not as helpful as the one which is set out in Stones Justices Manual, Volume 3, 1978 Edition, at page 5169, and numbered 194. If the applicants' advisers had followed the precedent of No.194, it is doubtful whether this application would now be before the Court.
The time in which the application had to be made, under the provisions of Section 87 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as amended by the Criminal Law Act, 1977, was 21 days. That period expired on the 13th December, 1978. On that day, the Magistrates' Clerk wrote to the applicants' solicitors in these terms: "Dear Sirs, Further to your letter of the 8th December enclosing an application to State Case, please identify the question or questions of law or jurisdictionon which the opinion of the High Court is sought in accordance with Rule 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1968".
That letter seems to have been posted during the Christmas period, and as a result there was some delay in delivery. It was answered on the 10th January, 1979, in these terms: "It is our understanding that there was only one major finding of fact, namely, that Lefore Holdings Ltd. had beneficial use or could have had beneficial use of the ground in question as a car park and it is that finding of fact which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidence before the Court".
The Clerk to the Justices seems to have consulted the Magistrates and to have given them advice and as a result, the Magistrates decided that there had not been any proper identification of the issue in the application to State a Case as is required by Rule 65 of the 1965 Magistrates Court Rules. It was because of that refusal that the applicants applied to the Divisional Court for a judicial review.
The problems which have arisen in this case are as follows: first, was the application, dated the 8th December, 1978, one which complied firstly with Section 87 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as amended, secondly whether it complied with Rule 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1965, and thirdly, if it did not, were those Rules mandatory or directory? If they were mandatory, any defects in the application dated the 8th December, 1978, could not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G, Malaysia; Mohamed Nordin bin Johan
- Ng Yit Seng and Another v Syarikat Jiwa Mentakab Sdn Bhd and Others
- Vehicle Inspectorate v T. D. Company Kelly Ltd
-
Vehicle Inspectorate v T. D. Company Kelly Ltd
...to comply with rules for time limits in stating a case. Reference was made to R v Croydon Justices, Ex parte Lefore HoldingsWLR ([1980] 1 WLR 1465) and Parsons v F W Woolworth & Co LtdWLR ([1980] 1 WLR 1472). His Lordship would not wish to detract from the concern in both those cases that r......