Natural justice and costs applications in magistrates' courts

Case overview

In Tilat Khan, R (on the application of) v Leicester Magistrates' Court [2025] EWHC 2510 (Admin), the High Court examined whether a claimant received a fair opportunity to make submissions on costs following a liability order for unpaid council tax. Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the judicial review claim, finding that natural justice requirements had been satisfied.

The disputed hearing

The matter arose from a contested liability order hearing on 29 May 2024, where Leicester Magistrates' Court ordered Mrs Tilat Khan to pay £13,500 in costs to Leicester City Council. The council had sought £22,491.80. The claimant's counsel, Mr Mohammad Tayyab Khan, subsequently alleged he had been given no opportunity to address the justices on costs before they retired to consider the matter.

The case turned on sharply conflicting accounts. The legal adviser, Mr Altaf Essat, stated that defence counsel was given "every opportunity" to make representations but "chose to remain silent". Counsel for the council, Ms Evelyn Barden, recorded in her attendance note that Mr Khan "opposed costs in their entirety". Mr Khan maintained he was never invited to make submissions.

The evidential challenge

With no recording or transcript available, the court relied on contemporaneous handwritten notes and witness testimony given 16 months after the hearing. The deputy judge found Ms Barden's blue book notes and her attendance note, written shortly after the hearing, to be the most reliable evidence available. Her evidence was described as "scrupulously fair" and delivered with "a directness which spoke of integrity".

The court accepted that Mr Khan had been invited to make submissions, noting that if he failed to appreciate this through distraction, "that does not mean that the opportunity was not given". The deputy judge found Mr Khan had sufficient opportunity to make submissions at three distinct points: immediately after the application was made, by requesting the justices return to court during their retirement, or immediately upon their return.

The costs jurisdiction point

The interested party argued that even if natural justice had been breached, relief should be refused under s31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981, contending the magistrates lacked discretion once satisfied costs were reasonably incurred under Regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

The court rejected this narrow interpretation. Whilst R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates Court [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin) established that magistrates must be satisfied costs were actually incurred, related to obtaining the liability order, and reasonable, this did not eliminate discretion. The deputy judge emphasised that Nicolson concerned uncontested proceedings and did not address contested hearings requiring multiple hearings over extended periods.

Procedural observations

The judgement highlighted that judicial review is "singularly inapt" for examining credibility issues. The court noted that stating a case under s111 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 provides a more suitable mechanism, with a 21-day time limit encouraging prompt action whilst evidence remains fresh. The case stated procedure produces an agreed document without requiring witness evidence and its associated costs.

The claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the interested party summarily assessed at £16,500, significantly reduced from the £33,521.20 claimed on proportionality grounds given the £13,500 at stake in the underlying dispute.