Usman, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

1. MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: I have before me an Appellant's Notice of 19th May 2005 by which Mr Muazu Usman engages with the London Borough of Lambeth in relation to a council tax appeal. Lambeth Borough Council appear by Mr Lane. Mr Usman is represented, at the last minute so to speak, by Mr Dayo. The matter, though, has, in fact, some history in that the skeleton argument of Mr Lane was supplied to Mr Usman in October and, on the face of things, Mr Usman has had ample time to consider it.

2. Prior to Mr Dayo's involvement, Mr Usman's case was presented by way of skeleton argument prepared by a friend of his, Mr Heslop. I am bound to say, having done the best I could to study papers before the hearing began, I could not see that any proper ground arose, a ground which would lead to a possibility of the Valuation Tribunal's decision being set aside. The grounds in Mr Heslop's formulation confuse what exists as between Mr Usman and his former wife and, what is more material, the state between Mr Usman and Lambeth Borough Council.

3. I am satisfied that the debts claimed by Lambeth are properly claimable against Mr Usman (in relation to the time to which the council tax is relevant) in his capacity of an owner of the property at 70 Endymion Road. I have not been able to detect any error in the Tribunal's or Lambeth's reasoning, and certainly none that was identified in Mr Heslop's argument, so I have to dismiss the application.

4. So far as costs are concerned, Mr Lane hands up a Statement of Costs - a Summary Assessment that comes to £3,308 including VAT. Mr Lane tells me that at an earlier stage it was indicated to Mr Usman that if he persisted with his appeal then costs of and incidental to the hearing, including counsel's fees, would sought to be recovered, or at any rate that an order for them would be sought to be made. So to some extent Mr Usman has brought those late costs on himself.

5. I not only dismiss Mr Usman's application, but order by way of summary assessment, including VAT, that he be required to pay £3,308.80 to Lambeth. The standard period is 14 days.

6. I should say that earlier I considered an application, raised but not pressed very hard by Mr Dayo, that the matter should be adjourned. I pointed out that if it was adjourned then not only would the costs of today no doubt be argued to be recovered by Lambeth, but also the additional costs of yet another hearing. The answer to this, given by Mr Dayo, was that Mr Usman's finances were such that he could not afford that. That, of course, would have made it unfair to Lambeth because the outcome would be that even an order for recovery of costs of the adjournment and of a further hearing would be jeopardised because of Mr Usman's impecuniosity. In other words, his impecuniosity is in fact an argument against an adjournment.

7. If I had been able to spot some chink in Lambeth's armour that might have been exploited had there been an adjournment, no doubt that could have been looked into and developed, but I have been able to see no conceivable way in which Mr Usman can end up with an argument of any merit in this matter. That, coupled with the impecuniosity of Mr Usman, seemed to me to be such that I could not permit, in fairness to both sides, an adjournment. Hence the case went on in the manner that I have indicated.

8. Thus, I dismiss the application and make the order for costs which I have mentioned.