Search Results

Home Page for Sarah Robson - Costs Barrister - The Original Black Belt Barrister - Specialist in Fixed Costs. Ranked as a Leading Junior for Costs in the Legal 500. Sarah Robson Black Belt Barrister (4th Dan) 2002 Call Legal 500 Sarah Robson has been ranked in the 2026 Legal 500 as a Leading Junior for Costs. Leading juniors are those with significant experience of key cases, strong market recognition from both peers and clients, and are seen as future candidates for silk. "Sarah is clearly a leading expert in the world of fixed costs disputes. She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of costs. Incredibly thorough, strategic, and always well-prepared. A fearless and tenacious barrister." Mazur's Run & Gun Christmas game coming soon Mazur's Run & Gun is this year's answer to the Mazur problem! In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) , the High Court unexpectedly changed what we all thought we knew about conducting litigation, and much has been written about the rights and wrongs of the situation. However, NO ONE has provided you with a way to blast off some of your anguish quite like Mazur's Run & Gun. Chase the baddies before they get you. Armed with your deadly mince pies, move fast and watch out you don't get blown away. Can you reach the top of the leader-board? Search the site here: Black Belt Barrister Sarah Robson is the original "Black Belt Barrister." By day she is a Fixed Costs specialist. By night, she can be found at the local Dojang, practising her Dark Arts, aka Taekwondo. Sarah attends Detailed Assessments, Oral Reviews, Preliminary Costs Hearings, CCMCs, Appeals, Fast and Multi-Track matters. She is THE go-to barrister for anything to do with Fixed costs. As well as being an excellent advocate in court, she is also happy to advise, particularly on technical points and procedural tactics. Sarah represents both Claimants and Defendants - she feels working for both sides gives her a better understanding of how the other side are likely to run a case. Sarah Robson East Midlands based Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is part of Alpha Court Chambers based in Warwickshire, home of Warwick Castle. Where? Sarah Robson appears in the SCCO, as well as High Courts and County Courts across much of Central England and Wales. She covers from Leeds to London, Cardiff to Norwich - Nationwide for remote hearings - or on request for in person. Usual Operating Area Fixed Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is a specialist costs barrister with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning Fixed Costs. Speaking Engagements Sarah speaks around the country on fixed costs. Sarah is a popular and engaging speaker. She is not phased by addressing large audiences. She can also be persuaded to provide a Taekwondo demonstration, and has been surprised by the eagerness of the judiciary to have a go too! Sarah speaks to both Claimant and Defendant audiences, and to professional and lay clients. Please email to find out about her speaking availability. Service Sarah Robson does not have a clerk - she does not need one. Once clients have seen how Sarah works and how good she is they keep coming back! Solicitors can talk directly to Sarah when they book a case and often benefit from discussing the case with her at that point. There is usually time then to take steps to strengthen your case, whereas where a clerk has taken the booking it is often too late by the time counsel receive papers for a hearing. It is not unusual for cases to settle once the other side hear that Sarah Robson is the barrister on your side. Reputation Sarah is an experienced advocate with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning fixed costs. Awards and Scholarships Sarah was awarded the London University Prize for Distinguished Exam Performance in her LLB (Hons) (1999) Sarah received a major award from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple for her Bar School year (2001) Sarah received a major award from her Bar School, the University of the West of England (2001) Original Black Belt Barrister Sarah is the original Black Belt Barrister. She is a current practicing 4th degree black belt in Tae kwon do, a fully qualified Tae kwon do instructor and referee. She is registered with the British Taekwondo Council. She regularly judges Tae kwon do competitions at both local and national level. Bar Standards Board Sarah Robson is a barrister regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). She is governed by the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct. The Barristers' Register shows (1) who has a current practising certificate, and (2) whether a barrister has any disciplinary findings, which are published on the Barristers’ Register in accordance with the BSB’s policy. Contractual Terms All work is carried out under COMBAR's standard terms and conditions, payment option A. These can be found her e . These terms will apply to all instructions and briefs accepted from solicitors and other authorised persons unless other terms have been agreed in writing. Instruction Sarah aims to make the process of instructing her straight-forward. She understand the need to be flexible and to work together as a team to provide practical solutions. If you would like to instruct her please call or email direct. Please do not supply details about the case before checking if she is conflicted. Work in England and Wales Sarah accepts instructions from: •Solicitors, other authorised litigators, employed barristers and legal advice centres in England & Wales •European lawyers registered with the Law Society and qualified lawyers from other jurisdictions •Licensed professionals in the UK under the Licensed Access scheme Please note Sarah is not Direct Access Qualified . Members of the public should seek a solicitor. Fees/Timescales Sarah is happy to discuss fees, which are usually based on her hourly/daily rate, and agree a fixed fee, which will vary depending on the work required. These fees are likely to be higher if your case is particularly complex or urgent. A fixed fee means she will charge you a set amount of money for the work required. She will need to agree a fee in advance for each piece of work going forward. She is willing to provide quotations or estimates of fees and a timetable for completing work. Fee quotations or estimates will usually be based on hourly/daily rates. She can also in some circumstances offer a fixed or capped fee for drafting or a hearing. For trials will be provide an estimate of a brief fee and where appropriate, a refresher rate. Fees may be structured in a way to suit the client, for instance charging agreed fees for preparation of a skeleton argument, for general preparation, and for attendance at court. Timescales Timescales for completion of work can depend on a number of factors, examples being: availability of Counsel and or client; complexity of the matter; and number of papers involved; and will obviously be affected by the volume of other work being undertaken. For instance if counsel is engaged in a two-week trial it may not be possible to complete work within the usual timescale. As a guide, she would normally expect to complete paperwork within three weeks unless external factors (which will be explained at the outset) prevent this. As regards court work, much depends on the timetables provided by the courts, over which she has no control, and the need to comply with court prescribed timetables. Work required to comply with these timetables has to take priority over other work. Complaints A copy of Chambers' Complaints policy can be found by clicking the above link . If you are unhappy with the response to your complaint, or if you receive no final response within eight weeks and you fall within their jurisdiction you may take up your complaint with the Legal Ombudsman, the independent complaints body for complaints about lawyers. The Ombudsman is not able to consider your complaint until it has first been investigated by Chambers. Please note that You must complain to the Legal Ombudsman either within six years of your barrister’s actions/failure to act, or no later than three years after you should reasonably have known there were grounds to complain. You must also complain to the Legal Ombudsman within six months of receiving your barrister’s final response to your complaint.” You can write to them at: Legal Ombudsman PO Box 6806, Wolverhampton WV1 9WJ Telephone number: 0300 555 0333 Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk More information about the Legal Ombudsman is available on their website : http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/ The Ombudsman’s website of decisions during the last 12 months, showing against whom the Ombudsman has made any ruling, or any decision requiring a remedy, is available at Ombudsman decision data | Legal Ombudsman Not afraid of difficult cases Why not call and ask to speak to Sarah to find out what she can do for you? That case you hate in the bottom of your cupboard, we know it's there. Sarah can help. Contact Sarah Robson Taekwondo World Championships 2023 Sarah's own club attended the 2023 Taekwondo World Championships and came back with 22 new World Champions! Total medal count: 22 Gold medals, 17 Silver medals and 20 Bronze medals. Oh, and her own instructor retains his title as the World Champion too. Not all Black Belt Barristers can say this. Sarah spoke at the ACL Costs Conference in Manchester on "Black Belt Court Craft". She ended the entertaining talk with a board break. Kevin Latham was not injured in the making of this talk.

Cases on the interplay of Part 36 offers and cases which are subject to fixed ex portal SIIIA CPR 45 costs Part 36 Offers and SIIIA Fixed Costs Cookson v Manchester City Council HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 28.04.17 (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer removes the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) Ansell v AT&T DDJ Lynch, Slough County Court, 12th June 2017 (first instance) HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 (on appeal) (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not remove the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Case law on leaving the MOJ Portals and the cost consequences which follow. Includes Unreasonable Exit, Where a judge removed the claim from the Portal. minor technical breaches only, total failure to use the Portal. Leaving the Portals Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Leaving for technical non-compliance only not reasonable) Modhwadia v Modhwadia DJ Atkinson Leicester CC 25th Jan 2014; reviewed DJ Atkinson 29th Sept 2014; on appeal HHJ Hampton 20th Jan 2015 (First Tier Appeal - Failure to explain reason for offer not fatal) Ilahi v Usman HHJ Platts, Manchester CC, 29th Nov 2012 (First Tier Appeal - CPR 45.24 engaged even when case automatically left, where that departure was caused by an act which the Claimant elected to take) Doyle v Manchester Audi DJ Matharu, Manchester CC, 25th Jun 2013 (Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave) Payne v Scott DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th Jul 2015 (Where judge ordered case out of Portal was still Claimant's election to leave) Uppal v Daudia DDJ Matthews, Leicester CC, 14th May 2012 (No obligation to make offer in Portal, unreasonable to leave for that, D's Costs awarded on indemnity basis following finding that C acted unreasonably) Rafiania v All Type Scaffolding Ltd DDJ Corscadden, Manchester CC, 14th Jan 2015 (No test of reasonableness for total failure to use the Portal) Monteith v Carroll Liverpool CC, 17th Oct 2012 (Making a pre-med offer did not justify leaving the Portal) Hussain v Wardle Stoke on Trent CC, DJ Rank, 25th Feb 2017 (Claim left Portal after Claimant failed to include mandatory information in the CNF) Bursuc v EUI Ltd DJ Revere, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC, 30th May 2018 (Not unreasonable to leave Portal Protocol because became too complex, applications to limit C to Portal costs cannot be made until claim concluded) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Prohibition on the use of hindsight and speculation, what would have happened anyway, for cases in the MOJ Portal Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 2nd Mar 2015 (Cannot take into account would have left the Portal anyway) Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th Dec 2014 (Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason) Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th April 2016 Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor (First Tier Appeal - Cannot use hindsight when a case has left the Portal) Ryan v Hackett [2020] EWHC 288 (QB) (Could take into account what happens after a claim leaves the Portal when determining costs on the facts of this case) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Exceptional Circumstances Costs cases under CPR 45.29J - there is limited case law on exceptional circumstances costs, but Sarah Robson has gathered them all together here for you. Including Ferri v Gill, Jackson v Barfoot Farms, Crompton v Meadowcroft, Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry, Baker v Flynn, West v Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB). Exceptional Circumstances Costs - CPR 45.29J (now CPR 45x.29J) Ferri v Gill [2019[ EWHC 952 (QB) (Considered what the basket of cases was in a CPR 45.29J application, noted the test was a high bar) Jackson v Barfoot Farms DJ Jackson, Canterbury County Court, 29th Nov 2017 (Whether agreement to pay costs on the standard basis excluded the award of fixed costs, and non-fixed costs were awarded as the case was exceptional per CPR 45.29J) Crompton v Meadowcroft (Costs ) [2021] EW Misc 20 (24 Aug 21) (CPR 45.29J Exceptional circumstances costs awarded in case with multiple experts, 13 reports, 11 sets of records, MRI scans, multiple surgeries caused, CBT & Physio needed, Ogden calculations, Smith & Manchester calculation) Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry Ltd (Costs) [2019] EW Misc (29 Jan 19) (Exceptional circumstances costs awarded under CPR 45.29J where C had permanent disability, complex loss of earnings claim/Billet calculation using Ogden tables, extensive specials, very long witness statements) Baker v Flynn (The lower court awarded exceptional c ircumstances costs under CPR 45.29J - the fact that liability was in dispute was a major consideration, there were also issues under the Equality Act, use of Ogden tables, pension loss and so forth - upheld on appeal for same reasons NB only the first instance judgment is available West v Ol akanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB) (Exceptional circumstances costs awarded at first instance for fundamental dishonesty, overturned on appeal as evidence not tested in cross-examination) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

To book counsel for a hearing or for drafting, please use this page. Contact / Book Counsel To enquire if counsel is available, please complete this form and we will get back to you shortly. Fee Earner's name* Name of Solicitor's Firm* Email Address* Do you require an Advice/Drafting?* Hearing Only Hearing and Advice/Drafting Advice/Drafting Only Name of Court (leave blank if drafting only) Date of Hearing Time and Estimated Length of Hearing Details of Instruction* SUBMIT Chambers' Telephone Number 0800 634 9650 From outside the UK: +44 (0)191 580 0237 Professional clients will be provided with Sarah's mobile number directly. Members of the General Public should note that Sarah Robson cannot advise them directly; she is not Direct Access qualified . They should see a solicitor. Email email@sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Linked In uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahrobsonbarrister Blue Sky https://bsky.app/profile/sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Mastodon @Portal_Queen@c.im (@Portal_Queen@c.im) Postal Address Please do not post papers to the chambers address. Professional clients will be provided with Sarah Robson's postal address directly. Document Exchange Please note that Sarah Robson is no longer on the document exchange as of November 2022 . X (Twitter) @Portal_Queen Sarah Robson is no longer active on Twitter

< Back Desert Wildlife Conservation This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Power in Numbers 30 Programs 50 Locations 200 Volunteers Project Gallery Previous Next

Bird v Acorn [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 - the Court of Appeal held that listing a case for disposal, not just trial, triggered the highest stage of fixed SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs for cases which leave the Portal. There was no requirement for a case to go through all the stages in order. Key Point A disposal hearing is a trial for the purposes of SIIIA Fixed costs Bird v Acorn Group Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 The Court of Appeal held that listing a claim for not just a trial still triggered the highest stage of SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs for cases which leave the Portal. A disposal was a trial for the purposes of fixed SIIIA costs. There was no requirement for a case to go through all the stages in order. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Patel v Fortis - Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011. The first reported judgment on the Portal. Here the court held that Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable. Also that non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases. Key Points Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable and Non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011 The Claimant removed this case from the Portal because the Defendant had not sent an acknowledgement of the claim within 24 hours, which is a mandatory requirement. The Claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings, although the parties later settled quantum without a hearing. The issue was what costs should apply. The Defendant argued firstly that they had acknowledged the claim in time, but in the alternative, the claimant had acted unreasonably and should be restricted to Portal costs under CPR 45.36(2)(b)(i) [now CPR 45.24(2)(b)(i)]. The Defendant argued that whether the CNF was a claim form or either way, their Insurer Response sent 48 hours later (which it was accepted counted as an acknowledgement) was not late. The court held that the CPR rules on service did not apply to service of the CNF; the Portal was a highly stand-alone code and one could not simply import non-Portal CPRs into it. Thus the fact that the CNF had been sent after did not make any difference. The Portal rules required an acknowledgement to be sent the next day, whatever time of day the CNF had been sent. However, the court did find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in leaving the Portal and issuing Part 7 proceedings. Whilst there was a breach, it was a technical breach only and made no real difference. If the Claimant solicitors had been genuinely concerned to see if their claim had been received, they could have checked by either looking on the Portal or contacting the Defendant, but they did nothing. The judge held that it was unreasonable to leave the Portal for a technical breach only, it was not reasonable, and he restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. The court also considered the application of CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.24) as the matter had settled, so there was no judgment. The court had no difficulty in finding that the rule applied equally to cases which settled as well as to those where was given. there would be a lacuna in the rules and it would discourage settlement. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Mukadam v Nazir HHJ Khan, Preston CC, 14th May 2020. The court held that Admission in the MOJ Portal by the Claimant's Employer's Insurers was binding. ALSO A side note to the Portal admission stating: 'made without driver's instructions' did not change effect of Portal Admission Key Point Admission in Portal by Employer's Insurers was binding ALSO A side note to the Portal admission stating: 'made without driver's instructions' did not change effect of Portal Admission Mukadam v Nazir HHJ Khan, Preston CC, 14th May 2020 Both parties brought a claim against the other in the Portal. In the one brought by Mr Nazir, the Defendant in that claim admitted liability. Mr Mukadam was driving his employer's vehicle under their policy of insurance. He argued that the admission made by the insurers should not bind him outside of the claim, noting that because it was not his insurance policy, he had no privity of contract with the insurers. Furthermore, when the admission of liability was made in the portal, it was accompanied by a side note which stated: "Please note that we are dealing with your client’s claim on a without admission of liability from our insured." The court held that nonetheless, the admission was binding on the driver outside the portal, preferring Ullah v Jon to Malak v Nasim , and following Chimel v Chibwana & Williams . Instructed by Matt Dowrick, Canford Law Solicitors. Click here for a copy of the judgment Click here for a PDF copyof the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 - here the court held an offer of zero on one head of law was a valid offer in the MOJ Portal. Key Point An offer of zero is a valid offer in the Portal Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 The Defendant made an offer of zero for one head of loss in the Portal. The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal, claiming that the Defendant had breached the Portal rules. When it came to costs the Claimant argued that the requirement to propose an amount for every head of damage (now para 7.41 RTA Protocol, 7.35 EL/PL Protocol) required the Defendant to propose a figure other than zero. They claimed that by offering zero, the Defendant was in breach of that requirement which justified their departure from the Portal. However, the court found that an offer of zero was a perfectly valid offer. To find otherwise would be to find that a Defendant would have to offer at least 1p for any head of loss claimed, however ludicrous it might be. That could not be right. Whilst an offer of zero might be perfectly valid as an offer on one head of loss, it is unclear whether the situation would be the same if every head of loss had an offer of zero made. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Sarah Robson is not a Direct Access qualified barrister. Members of the public will have to get a solicitor to instruct her. This page tells you what your solicitor can do for you if you get a Liability Order against you which you dispute - how to apply to set it aside - appeal - and how to "Check, Challenge, Appeal" non-domestic rates in the Valuation Tribunal. Act fast - you have days or weeks in which to apply to set aside a liablity order. Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Liability Orders Members of the General Public are reminded that they should see a SOLICITOR if they have a problem with a liability order. Sarah Robson cannot speak to members of the public directly. How to Appeal a Liability Order Challenge liability to pay in the Valuation Tribunal The Valuation Tribunal The Valuation Tribunal is the place to dispute liability for non-domestic or business rates. See their website for more details at: www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk Can I Appeal a Liability Order? I am often asked if liability orders can be appealed. Yes you can, but that is an expensive route and the timescales are tiny. If you believe the liability order should not have been made in the first place, and/or it was made in error, then it would be far cheaper instead to apply to set it aside - but you need to act really fast. Challenges to liability to pay non-domestic rates are often better brought in the Valuation Tribunal . The secret to successfully challenging a liability order is to act fast as soon as you receive a summons or think a liability order may have been made. It is not unlike applying to set aside a statutory demand when it comes to time running. Write to the court and ask for a hearing to consider your application to set the liability order aside. Setting Aside Liability Orders Magistrates are creatures of statute, and do not have a statutory power to re-open civil cases, even when they know they have made an error! This used to mean that the only way to challenge a liability order was to judicially review the order - a highly expensive process. A common law power to re-open a civil case by magistrates developed in case law, which is unusual for civil matters in the largely criminal court of the magistrates. This was set out in Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin) (“Plemora”) as where there had been a substantial procedural defect, where it has done something which is unlawful and in excess of its jurisdiction. R (on the application of Newham London Borough Council) v Stratford Magistrates' Court & Selwyn Dublin R (on the application of Newham London Borough Council) v Stratford Magistrates' Court & Selwyn Dublin (Interested Party) [2008] EWHC 125 (Admin), [2008] RA 108, [2008] All ER (D) 17 (Jan) [2008] In this case, Dublin claimed he had not been aware of the proceedings. He did not submit nor prove that order was unlawful or made in excess of jurisdiction, or in ignorance of a significant fact concerning their procedure of which the justices should have been aware, as required in Brighton & Hove. The District Judge allowed the application because he had an ‘arguable case’. The council applied to Judicially Review the decision of the District Judge to set aside the liability order. At Judicial Review Sarah successfully argued that was the wrong test. The test to set aside a liability order was not simply where it would be reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so – such a test would be too wide and vague. A liability order cannot be overturned simply by showing an arguable case. The court must be satisfied: the order was made as a result of a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap, that there was both a genuine and dispute as to that liability, and that the application was made promptly. Finding ‘some doubt’ over the original decisions does not satisfy the correct test, neither would allegations as to non-receipt of summonses, etc, even if proved. However he went on to say: “If non-attendance at a hearing because of a traffic accident would be sufficient to satisfy that criterion, I find it difficult to see why non-receipt of the notice of the hearing might not also qualify.” How the power to set aside developed In R (Brighton and Hove City Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin) (“Brighton & Hove”), HHJ Burnton said it was important to note that the power Maurice Kay J held to exist in Plemora to set aside a liability order could not be exercised simply where the defendant disputed his liability. There must be a substantial defect, and not on the part of the defendant. Further, in Camberwell, at para 37, LJ Waller expressed disquiet over the Plemora case, saying it was not free from doubt. Further, at para 34, HHJ Burnton stated the proper consideration was: “whether there had been any procedural defect in the proceedings that led to making of the liability orders, and whether (the defendant) had applied promptly for them to be set aside after learning they had been made.” In Brighton & Hove, HHJ Burnton (at para 31) held that it would be exceptional to set aside a liability order, something to be undertaken cautiously. Further (para 37) he stressed the importance of the need for finality in proceedings for liability orders, and how it is inappropriate to re-open orders simply where it would be reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so – that test was too wide and vague. HHJ Burnton further held that a court should not set aside a liability order unless it is satisfied that there is a genuine and arguable dispute as to the defendant’s liability for the rates in question, AND a. the order was made as a result of a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap. (The court must be satisfied that the order was unlawful or made in excess of jurisdiction, or in ignorance of a significant fact concerning their procedure of which the justices should have been aware) AND b. the application to the justices for the order to be set aside is made promptly after the defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that an order may have been made. Prompt action should be taken within a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months, and certainly not as much as a year, (para 33). (Brighton and Hove City Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin) When does time start to run? Time starts to run from constructive notice that an order may have been made Prompt Application Those wishing to apply to set aside a liability order should note that as a matter of principle for all challenges to administrative and judicial decisions, the application should be made promptly. Time starts to run from the date of the order, or from when a defendant has notice or constructive notice of the order. Constructive notice of a liability order can be deemed from as little as notice of the issue of a summons with no notice of the actual outcome – para 33 Brighton & Hove; “the jurisdiction to reopen a liability order will be unavailable to a defendant who delays in circumstances in which he has notice that an order may have been made, although he had not received a copy or been informed that an order has been made." Those who wish to challenge a finding of liability to pay council tax will be pleased to note that there is no time limit for appealing to the council concerned, providing they have not already given a decision notice or 'final decision'.