Court refuses to quash decision to issue summons for alleged housing offences

A minor error on a summons issued by a borough council in relation to alleged Housing Act offences did not invalidate it, the Administrative Court has ruled.

Lord Justice Treacey, who heard the case with Mr Justicie Dove, said in Platinum Crown Investments Ltd v North East Essex Magistrates Court [2017] EWHC 2761 (Admin) when Colchester Borough Council prosecuted Platinum Crown Ltd (PCL) in respect of 10 alleged offences, contrary to s.234 of the Housing Act 2004 it in fact meant Platinum Crown Investments Ltd (PCIL).

Colchester applied to amend the name of the defendant under s.123 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 to show the defendant was PCIL rather than PCL, but the latter’s counsel objected and applied for judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to permit this change.

It was argued by counsel that what had wrongly been permitted was the substitution of the original defendant by a different defendant outside the time limit, and that therefore the decision should be quashed.

However, Lord Justice Treacey said Colchester had always intended to prosecute PCIL and that both PCIL and its director Cyril Thomas were aware of this.

“On the first court appearance when Mr Thomas attended and entered not guilty pleas it is clear that he must have intended to enter pleas on behalf of PCIL,” the judge said.

“This was not a case where there was room for confusion with some other legal entity. It is clear that all parties acted on the basis that Mr Thomas and PCIL were the defendants, it not being appreciated until a late stage…that there was a problem arising from the name of PCL appearing on the informations and summonses.

He went on: “I would analyse this matter as one not involving a mistake of identity but rather a mis-statement of name.

“In my judgment this was a mistake or mis-statement of name in circumstances where there could be no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the defendant entertained by the court or indeed by the defendant itself.”

Treacey LJ said magistrates had been entitled to conclude the error was a mere mis-statement of a name on the summons and that amendment, notwithstanding the expiry of the statutory time limit, was a course they could properly take.

He dismissed the claim for judicial review.

Mark Smulian