Exhibit Integration Guide

carry on from: GJT2). - The case relies on

carry on from: *. The unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed *

carry on from *.

carry on from: GJT13). - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *

carry on from *

carry on from: (Exhibit GJT27). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void (Exhibit GJT28). **Potential Damages and Remedies

carry on from *

carry on from: I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November

carry on from: - **Exhibit GJT10**: Local Government Finance Act *. - **Ex

carry on from: - **Exhibit GJT18**: Article * of

carry on fro: - **Exhibit GJT30**: Compensation for

do you mean attach them as the list you have done above

is this statement correct, with change relevant italics

check this: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, of address, the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement in support of my claim against The City of Doncaster Council and specifically against representatives Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen, in their personal capacity. **Events and Personal Impact** *. On * November *, I received notice of an interim charging order dated * October * issued by the council, based on a bulk list extract of liability enclosed in a letter dated * October * and received on * November * (Exhibit GJT1). *. I oppose the Claimant's application for an unlawful interim charging order on my personal property where I reside. My property is legally defined as a Dwelling-House under Halsbury's Laws, not the broad term "dwelling" as used in the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT2). *. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of carry on from *. **Events and Personal Impact** *. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of individual case numbers contravenes the principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **, which mandates individual consideration and proper documentation for each case (Exhibit GJT3). **Claimant's Evidence** *. The unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed * (Exhibit GJT8). The total number of defendants across *, *, and * amounts to *, all without unique individual Court Case reference numbers and procedure are unlawful. This bulk processing approach violates the requirement for individual case assessment as highlighted in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. **Challenge to the Liability Order** *. I have requested detailed evidence laid with the Magistrates Court from the Claimants to substantiate the debt claimed, which has not been provided satisfactorily. This lack of evidence contravenes the principles set out in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, wherein demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt (Exhibit GJT9). **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. - Broad term encompassing any property that can be lived in. - Governed by the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT10). - Supported by case law such as: - *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence (Exhibit GJT11). - *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **: Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation (Exhibit GJT12). - *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification (Exhibit GJT13). - **Dwelling-house** - Defined more specifically as a 'home' where one resides with all essential facilities for day-to-day living. - *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **: Clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living (Exhibit GJT14). **Legislative Framework** *. I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my debilitating disability causing mental disorders and financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to my health challenges (Exhibit GJT15). **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases, mandating that council tax matters should not be dealt with under SJP due to the complexity and necessity for judicial oversight (Exhibit GJT16). **Legal Precedent** *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** state that the issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid, as supported by the rulings in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** and *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** (Exhibit GJT17). **Human Rights Act *** *. The actions of Doncaster Council may constitute potential breaches of my human rights, specifically the right to respect for private and family life as outlined in Article * of the Human Rights Act * (Exhibit GJT18). **Disability Discrimination Act *** *. Doncaster Council's actions may constitute discrimination due to my health conditions (Exhibit GJT19). **Equality Act *** *. **Direct Discrimination**: Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity (Exhibit GJT20). *. **Indirect Discrimination**: By imposing fines and additional costs, the Council has applied a policy that disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities (Exhibit GJT21). *. **Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible. The Council has not adjusted their approach or offered aid to accommodate my health issues and financial difficulties (Exhibit GJT22). *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly targeted me by adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years, creating an intimidating and hostile environment (Exhibit GJT23). **Void Orders** *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process (Exhibit GJT24). This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void (Exhibit GJT25). - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court (Exhibit GJT26). - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside (Exhibit GJT27). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void (Exhibit GJT28). **Potential Damages and Remedies** *. I seek the following remedies and compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its representatives, in their personal capacity: - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,* (Exhibit GJT32). **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act ** (Exhibit GJT33). *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act ** (Exhibit GJT34). **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure** *. The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC* (Exhibit GJT35). **Conclusion** *. Based on the procedural improprieties, discriminatory actions, and the improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, I respectfully request that the court: - Dismiss the application for an interim charging order. - Award compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and legal costs as detailed above. - Consider the legal precedents and the evidence provided in support of my claims. **Statement of Truth** I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November * **Exhibit GJT3**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** - "Each case must receive individual consideration and proper documentation, ensuring unique Court case reference numbers for each defendant." **Exhibit GJT16**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** - "Council tax matters should not be dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure due to the complexity and necessity for proper judicial oversight." **Exhibit GJT9**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** - "Demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate the debt claimed." **Exhibit GJT11**: *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* - "Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence." **Exhibit GJT12**: *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ** - "Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation." **Exhibit GJT13**: *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* - "Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification." **Exhibit GJT14**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** - "Clarifies the meaning of 'dwelling-house' in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living." **Exhibit GJT17**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** - "Issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid." **Exhibit GJT18**: *Human Rights Act ** - "Article *: Right to respect for private and family life." **Exhibit GJT19**: *Disability Discrimination carry on from *Exhibit GJT19**: *Disability Discrimination **Exhibit GJT19**: *Disability Discrimination Act ** - "Discrimination on the grounds of disability includes failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the disabled person's needs." **Exhibit GJT20**: *Equality Act ** - "Direct Discrimination: Occurs when a person is treated less favorably due to a disability." **Exhibit GJT21**: *Equality Act ** - "Indirect Discrimination: Occurs when a policy that applies to everyone particularly disadvantages people with disabilities." **Exhibit GJT22**: *Equality Act ** - "Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments: Organizations must take reasonable steps to avoid putting disabled individuals at a substantial disadvantage." **Exhibit GJT23**: *Equality Act ** - "Harassment: Unwanted behavior related to disability that violates the individual's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment." **Exhibit GJT24**: *Shirley Lewald, Solicitor Advocate* - "An 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process." **Exhibit GJT25**: carry on from: **Exhibit GJT25**: **Exhibit GJT25**: *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)* - "A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void." **Exhibit GJT26**: *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]* - "If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court." **Exhibit GJT27**: *Craig v. Kanssen [*]* - "An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside." **Exhibit GJT28**: *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]* - "A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void." **Exhibit GJT29**: Financial Losses - "Compensation for financial losses incurred due to fines and additional costs, estimated at £*,*." **Exhibit GJT30**: Emotional Distress - "Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*." **Exhibit GJT31**: Legal Costs - "Reimbursement of legal costs incurred due to defending against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,*." **Exhibit GJT32**: Council Tax Payments - "Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,*." **Exhibit GJT33**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** - "The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act **." **Exhibit GJT34**: *Equality Act ** - "Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act **." **Exhibit GJT35**: *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC* - "The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC*." Make sure to attach all the exhibits referenced at the end of the statement, labeled sequentially as GJT1, GJT2, etc. This structured approach will help ensure clarity and support your arguments effectively. how do i now include all this into the witness statement seems to be getting very complex and appreciate the help Certainly, I can guide you through integrating the exhibits into your witness statement. Here’s a step-by-step approach to help simplify the process: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. **Introduction** - I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, of address, the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement in support of my claim against The City of Doncaster Council and specifically against representatives Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen, in their personal capacity. *. **Events and Personal Impact** - On * November *, I received notice of an interim charging order dated * October * issued by the council, based on a bulk list extract of liability enclosed in a letter dated * October * and received on * November * (Exhibit GJT1). - I oppose the Claimant's application for an unlawful interim charging order on my personal property where I reside. My property is legally defined as a Dwelling-House under Halsbury's Laws, not the broad term "dwelling" as used in the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT2). - The case relies on carry on from: GJT2). - The case relies on *. The Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of individual case numbers contravenes the principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** (Exhibit GJT3). **Claimant's Evidence** *. The Claimant's evidence includes an unlawful schedule liability Order dated * July *, listing * defendants (Exhibit GJT4). It is crucial for the Court to note that the extract relied upon by the Claimant is on the reverse side of this Order and is an unlawful liability order (Exhibit GJT5). The Claimant utilizes a schedule extract of liability from * July *, which included * defendants (Exhibit GJT6). Regardless, both extracts represent unlawful liability orders. *. The schedule liability order extract issued on * July * included * defendants and is an unlawful liability order (Exhibit GJT7). *. The unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed * carry on from: *. The unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed * **Claimant's Evidence** *. The unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed * (Exhibit GJT8). The total number of defendants across *, *, and * amounts to *, all without unique individual Court Case reference numbers and procedure are unlawful. This bulk processing approach violates the requirement for individual case assessment as highlighted in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. **Challenge to the Liability Order** *. I have requested detailed evidence laid with the Magistrates Court from the Claimants to substantiate the debt claimed, which has not been provided satisfactorily. This lack of evidence contravenes the principles set out in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, wherein demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt (Exhibit GJT9). **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. carry on from *. **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. - Broad term encompassing any property that can be lived in. - Governed by the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT10). - Supported by case law such as: - *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence (Exhibit GJT11). - *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **: Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation (Exhibit GJT12). - *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification (Exhibit GJT13). - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a carry on from: GJT13). - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a 'home' where one resides with all essential facilities for day-to-day living. - *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **: Clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living (Exhibit GJT14). **Legislative Framework** *. I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my debilitating disability causing mental disorders and financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to my health challenges (Exhibit GJT15). **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases, mandating that council tax matters should not be dealt with under carry on from *. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases, mandating that council tax matters should not be dealt with under SJP due to the complexity and necessity for judicial oversight (Exhibit GJT16). **Legal Precedent** *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** state that the issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid, as supported by the rulings in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** and *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** (Exhibit GJT17). **Human Rights Act *** *. The actions of Don carry on from *. **Human Rights Act *** *. The actions of Doncaster Council may constitute potential breaches of my human rights, specifically the right to respect for private and family life as outlined in Article * of the Human Rights Act * (Exhibit GJT18). **Disability Discrimination Act *** *. Doncaster Council's actions may constitute discrimination due to my health conditions (Exhibit GJT19). **Equality Act *** *. **Direct Discrimination**: Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity (Exhibit GJT20). *. **Indirect Discrimination**: By imposing fines and additional costs, the Council has applied a policy that disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities (Exhibit GJT21). *. **Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible. The Council has not adjusted their approach or offered aid to accommodate my health issues and financial difficulties (Exhibit GJT22). *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly carry on from * **Equality Act *** *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly targeted me by adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years, creating an intimidating and hostile environment (Exhibit GJT23). **Void Orders** *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process (Exhibit GJT24). This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void (Exhibit GJT25). - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court (Exhibit GJT26). - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside (Exhibit G carry on from * **Void Orders** *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process (Exhibit GJT24). This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void (Exhibit GJT25). - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court (Exhibit GJT26). - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside (Exhibit GJT27). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void (Exhibit GJT28). **Potential Damages and Remedies carry on from: (Exhibit GJT27). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void (Exhibit GJT28). **Potential Damages and Remedies **Potential Damages and Remedies** *. I seek the following remedies and compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its representatives, in their personal capacity: - Compensation for financial losses incurred due to fines and additional costs, estimated at £*,* (Exhibit GJT29). - Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*, taking into account the prolonged nature of the distress caused (Exhibit GJT30). - Reimbursement of legal costs incurred due to defending against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,* (Exhibit GJT31). - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,* (Exhibit GJT32). **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act ** (Exhibit GJT33). *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties carry on from * **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act ** (Exhibit GJT34). **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure** *. The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC* (Exhibit GJT35). **Conclusion** *. Based on the procedural improprieties, discriminatory actions, and the improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, I respectfully request that the court: - Dismiss the application for an interim charging order. - Award compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and legal costs as detailed above. - Consider the legal precedents and the evidence provided in support of my claims. **Statement of Truth** I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November carry on from: I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November *. **List of Exhibits** - **Exhibit GJT1**: Notice of interim charging order dated * October *. - **Exhibit GJT2**: Definition of "Dwelling-House" under Halsbury's Laws and the Local Government Finance Act *. - **Exhibit GJT3**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. - **Exhibit GJT4**: Schedule liability Order dated * July *. - **Exhibit GJT5**: Extract on the reverse side of the Schedule liability Order dated * July *. - **Exhibit GJT6**: Schedule extract of liability from * July *. - **Exhibit GJT7**: Schedule liability order extract issued on * July *. - **Exhibit GJT8**: Unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July *. - **Exhibit GJT9**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. - **Exhibit GJT10**: Local Government Finance Act *. - **Exhibit GJT11**: *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. - **Exhibit GJT12**: *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **. - **Exhibit GJT13**: *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. - **Exhibit GJT14**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **. - **Exhibit GJT15**: Evidence of consistent council tax payments despite health challenges. - **Exhibit GJT16**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. - **Exhibit GJT17**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. - **Exhibit GJT18**: Article * of the Human Rights Act *. - **Exhibit GJT19**: Disability Discrimination Act *. - **Exhibit GJT20**: Equality Act * - Direct Discrimination. - **Exhibit GJT21**: Equality Act * - Indirect Discrimination. - **Exhibit GJT22**: Equality Act * - Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments. - **Exhibit GJT23**: Equality Act * - Harassment. - **Exhibit GJT24**: Statement by Shirley Lewald, Solicitor Advocate. - **Exhibit GJT25**: *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*. - **Exhibit GJT26**: *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*. - **Exhibit GJT27**: *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*. - **Exhibit GJT28**: *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*. - **Exhibit GJT29**: Compensation for financial losses. - **Exhibit GJT30**: Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact. - **Exhibit GJT31**: Reimbursement of legal costs. - **Exhibit GJT32**: Full reimbursement of council tax payments. - **Exhibit GJT33**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and Local Government Finance Act *. - **Exhibit GJT34**: Equality Act * and Disability Discrimination Act *. - **Exhibit GJT35**: *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*.