[2025] EWHC 2336 (Ch)

As already noted, the obligation to pay NDR arises only upon service of a valid demand notice. The defendant accepted that the existence of the Wigan demand notices, all dated 13 January 2015, had been established; but denied that Trafford had been able to establish the existence of the demand notices upon which it needed to rely. Trafford produced a new schedule giving Particulars of the Demand Notices with trial bundle references. There were two page references for each alleged demand, the first of which takes the court to a bill from Trafford to PAG for NDR, and the second of which takes the court to a screenshot, or ‘snip,’ of Trafford’s electronic case management system, as described by Mr Kelly in his evidence. The date highlighted in the screenshots under the heading ‘Stage Date’ was the date regarded by Mr Kelly as the date of the demand notice. The demand notices themselves were not in evidence because, as he explained, they had not been retained by Trafford.

Mr Kelly was an honest and co-operative witness, but he did not have much first-hand knowledge. While he evidently had a good working knowledge of the case management system, his knowledge was not comprehensive. He was cross examined in detail about the completeness of the snips, and how the particular screenshots had been selected, and why others had not been, and about the meaning of the information displayed on the snips. He had not reviewed each of the many tabs in the Civica Open Revenues database, instead selecting those he thought likely to be relevant.

In cross-examination, he accepted that the stage date showing on his snips was the last date something happened on the system, and not necessarily the date of the bill; while the ‘entered date’ on other snips referring to NDR recovery bills was the date upon which the item was entered, not necessarily when the bill was issued.

I accept that Trafford’s evidence about the demand notices had not insubstantial weaknesses, skilfully exposed by leading Counsel for the defendant. Nonetheless, I consider that the claimant has established, on the balance of probability, that it had served the Trafford demand notices upon which it relies by the dates shown in the Particulars mentioned above, which range between 24 June 2014 and 15 July 2015. I reach that conclusion, on the basis of the inherent unlikelihood that Trafford would issue subsequent invoices without having first issued demand notices; the fact that demand notices are mentioned at points in the correspondence with Trafford; and the appearance from the snips, incomplete as they are, of entries in the relevant sums corresponding with the bills which were in evidence at dates predating those bills.

That, it seems to me, is sufficient for present purposes. It would not be realistic, I consider, to expect much more in the way of evidence, given the constraints on local authorities’ operations, the passage of time, the migration of data, and the non-retention of original records, even if, as I accept, disclosure obligations may have been imperfectly complied with.