The defendant had applied for an adjournment of the council’s application for a liability order. The court made an order without considering the application, not having been told of it. On later discovering the application, they set aside the liability order to consider the application. The council objected.
Held: Although no statutory basis existed for such a re-opening of their decision, the magistrates could rely upon their inherent powers. They had a discretion to exercise, and had been requested to exercise it, but had not done so, and they had not exhausted their jurisdiction.
Judges:
Maurice Kay J
Citations:
Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Magistrates Courts Act 1980, Local Government and Finance Act 1988
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another CA 13-Dec-2004
Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.178303