General Rate Act 1967–Application to quash order for warrant of commitment–Duty of justices to inquire into means before issue of warrant–Application dismissed–Full inquiry made by justices
In these
proceedings counsel moved on behalf of David Pearce, of Heathfield Road,
Croydon, for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of Croydon justices on
October 21 1975 whereby they ordered the applicant to pay £665.20 rate arrears
or go to prison for six weeks.
Stephen Walsh
(instructed by Cohen & Naicker) appeared for the applicant. The respondent
justices were not represented.
ROBERT GOFF J
said that the background to the case was that the applicant bought the house 17
Heathfield Road, Croydon, in April 1972. Apparently at that time part of the
premises was used as an office for the business of selling coin laundry
equipment. Shortly after purchasing the house on mortgage the applicant ran
into financial difficulties and the office ceased to exist, but it was not
until 1975 that the local authority finally agreed to change the entry on the
valuation list relating to the property.
By section 96
of the General Rate Act 1967 provision was made for enforcement of rate demands
by distress and by section 103(1) justices were required to make an inquiry as
to whether failure to pay was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. By
that section justices should make an inquiry as to means before issue of a
warrant of commitment. The applicant now sought to quash the order made against
him on the ground that there had been an error of law. The main contention was
that there had been an error of law. The main contention was that there had
been a denial of natural justice in that the justices had failed to inquire
into the applicant’s means before making the order. When one turned to the
facts of the case it was clear from the affidavits sworn on behalf of the
justices that a full inquiry did take place. The more one looked at the case
the clearer it became that the justices did not err in law. What the applicant
was seeking to do was to persuade the court to review the justices’ factual
findings. That the court would not do. The application should be dismissed.
LORD WIDGERY
CJ and MICHAEL DAVIES J agreed and the application was dismissed.
