Borough secures bankruptcy order against defendant amid claims of non-existent address

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has won a bankruptcy order in the Insolvency and Companies Court against a man who claimed he had been billed at a non-existent address.

In London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Naris [2019] EWHC 886 (Ch) Judge Briggs found that Derek Naris had neither had his human rights infringed nor suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The court heard that eight liability orders were made against Mr Naris, five for a property known as Unit 3 100 The Highway and three for council tax elsewhere.

Mr Naris admitted that he was liable for five orders totalling £9,460.91 but disputed the remaining £75,592.91.

He had leased a property described in its lease as "all that land situate and known as 110-116 Pennington Street, Wapping, London E1 2BB and 100 The Highway, London E1” but later sublet part of the ground floor of 110-116 Pennington Street.

When a Tower Hamlets inspector called, Mr Naris said he had not received any business rates demands and claimed these had been sent to a different property at Unit 4 100 The Highway.

Mr Naris claimed a miscarriage of justice arose as he was not in occupation of the property where the demand was sent, notice was not served properly and the appeal court failed to hear the substance of his defence because it found that his appeal was not dealt with promptly.

The judge dismissed the human rights challenge to the conduct of earlier hearings, noting: “Mr Naris does not explain why the tribunal was not independent or impartial. He does not argue that it was not established by law. He does not explain why the public hearing was not fair other than to say that the Highway [property] did not exist and therefore he was not served.

“In my judgment his argument that there was a breach of Article 6 is without foundation.”

Judge Briggs also dismissed the idea that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

“The submission of Mr Naris that he is not liable for the non-domestic rates because the Highway [property] does not exist is not credible,” his ruling said.

“It is a hereditament that is liable to non-domestic rates. Thirdly the Highway was part of the demise that was the subject of a lease to Mr Naris. The same lease is relied upon by Mr Naris. He cannot rely on the lease for some purposes but not for others.”