It is troubling to me that 1,474 separate "court orders" can be certified with one illegible squiggle at the bottom of a 50 page list, and that no documentation is issued to declare the outcome. It seems like a lazy, complacent corner-cutting approach designed for the convenience of court & council staff. I would've expected 1,474 orders to be individually recorded and issued, even if this was achieved by a Word macro or some other efficient method.
That situation was indeed the assertion of Mr Leighton. He also asserted that he didn't have to pay council tax as he had a commercial lien, notarised in Thailand, and that enforcement by taking control of goods was unlawful due to the Statute of Marlborough 1267. With a freeman on the land on once side and bailiffs who don't know what happens in court in the other, it's not surprising that the judge was misled.
It's a common delusion of pseudolawyers (see the Peacekeepers for a good example) that court orders are pieces of paper. But in fact court orders are the thing declared by the court. Then they're recorded by court staff and held in perpetuity in a court record. So in a council tax court, the council gives its evidence, the court makes the orders, the legal adviser records it and it's stored in the court register with an annexe (usually a pdf these days) listing each order. Some courts do get magistrates to sign the record the legal adviser makes, I've no idea why, but I guess everyone can be infected with pseudo-law. It has no legal effect.
The only reason for issuing a paper order is to tell parties what the court did, but the exercise of printing the paper isn't the same as the exercise of making the order. With council tax there's no legal requirement for the court to produce paper notifications of liability orders as councils can do it more effectively. If courts served them, councils would have to write as well - as the purpose of a liability order is to get payment - so the court's expenditure, which would be around £4million a year, would be redundant.
