Thompson v The London Borough of Redbridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Longmore |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 984 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. A2/2013/0535 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 984
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE HILDYARD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Longmore
Case No. A2/2013/0535
The Applicant appeared in person
Mr K Gunaratna (instructed by Wilkin Chapman LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
There is before the court a renewed application for permission to appeal by Mr Thompson, who appears in person. He has had a little bit of help, he says, on a pro bono basis from Mr Sleeman of counsel, and that enabled him to put focused submissions before the court, for which the court is very grateful.
This all relates to council tax, unpaid by Mr Thompson between 1999 and 2007. A magistrates' court has made nine liability orders against Mr Thompson for unpaid council tax. On 6 December 2007 a means inquiry was scheduled at the magistrates' court. Mr Thompson did not attend; he says he never received the notifying letter sent on 7 November 2007. On 10 January 2008 and 29 May 2008 two further liability orders were made. In June 2008 the council served a statutory demand based on the failure to pay the five most recent liability orders. In July 2008 Mr Thompson applied to set aside that statutory demand. Importantly, a bankruptcy petition was issued on 31 July 2008. Before, on a date in August, the district judge rejected the application to set aside the statutory demand. In September 2008 the bankruptcy petition was served personally on Mr Thompson stating that it had been presented on 22 August 2008, and Mr Thompson asserts that that is a false date and a false document because the bankruptcy petition itself was issued on 31 July 2008.
The application to set aside the statutory demand having been rejected, the bankruptcy petition was heard on 4 December 2008. Mr Thompson did not attend on that occasion and, accordingly, District Judge Mullis declared Mr Thompson bankrupt. The very next day Mr Thompson applied to annul the bankruptcy order. That application was listed for 19 March 2009.
On that date, however, Deputy District Judge Joslin adjourned the application to annul to the 16 July 2009 to allow Mr Thompson to challenge the magistrates' liability orders. On 14 July, two days before the scheduled hearing, Mr Thompson applied for a further adjournment. That again was granted, and the annulment application was then listed for 3 December 2009. On that date Mr Thompson applied for a yet further adjournment of the application to annul so that he could complain to the ombudsman. District Judge Mullis adjourned it to the 21 May 2010.
So, on 21 May 2010, the application to annul the bankruptcy order began, 18 months effectively after it had been issued. The hearing did not conclude on that day, but one thing about which Mr Thompson complains is that counsel for the London Borough of Redbridge produced a case (which I shall call the Thraxton case), which appeared to state that the magistrates could not grant a remission of liability if the debtor had any property at all. That of course was a rating case, and Mr Thompson says should have no application to council tax. Be that as it may, the case did not finish on 21 May 2010; it was adjourned, part heard, to 2 June 2010.
On 2 June 2010, now certainly 18 months after the application had been made, District Judge Mullis dismissed the application for annulment and helpfully included in his order a requirement that any application for permission to appeal should be made within 21 days by 23 June 2010. Mr Thompson complains that that should no have been a formal part of the order, and I will return to that matter, but of course the order was only recording what the rules require in any event.
No application for permission to appeal was made by 23 June, and that was the end of the matter for another 17 months. During that time Mr Thompson unfortunately was very ill. Between March 2011 and February 2012 very sadly he had 11 moths of renal failure, and I am very pleased to see he has recovered now from that, to an extent that he can appear and argue his case with vigour and, as I say, with focus.
In September 2012 he had a relapse, and, while present at a check up on 11 December 2012, he actually collapsed, very fortunately at the doctor's at the time, and a deep vein thrombosis was found.
However, still nothing happened as far as any application for permission to appeal from District Judge Mullis was concerned, and the council eventually brought proceedings for possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr John Williams and Another v London Borough of Hackney
...adequate. This has been explained, albeit, I think, obiter by Black LJ in Re B (A Child) (sub nom Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 984 at para 34: I raised the question during the appeal hearing as to whether a parent who is inadequate is in fact "willing and able to …pr......