Clark, R (On the Application Of) v Bracknell Forest Borough Council

An appellate tribunal determining Council Tax liability must decide the factual issues for itself, rather than merely review whether the billing authority acted reasonably. The person asserting entitlement to a liability exemption or discount bears the evidential burden of establishing the statutory conditions. Bare assertions unsupported by documentary or other proper evidence may be rejected. A registered freehold proprietor has a material interest for the purposes of liability under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, whether or not the interest is beneficial. The court will not interfere with factual findings where the tribunal correctly understood the law and reached findings open to it on the evidence.

The appellant appealed under regulation 51(1) of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal's Regulations 1989 from the Berkshire Valuation Tribunal's decision of 23 April 2002. The Tribunal had dismissed his appeal against the Council's decision that he was liable for Council Tax on 13 Waverley, Bracknell, between 25 July 1995 and 1 March 1999.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal's treatment of exemptions and discounts, its findings concerning ownership and sole or main residence, its approach to evidence and burden of proof, and its understanding of its appellate jurisdiction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal had correctly considered the possible exemptions and discounts under sections 6 and 11 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Its conclusions were based on the absence of satisfactory evidence, not on an asserted discretion or time limit.
2. The appellant bore the burden of establishing the factual matters necessary to succeed. The Tribunal was entitled to reject unsupported assertions and was not required to obtain further evidence for him or suggest an adjournment where none had been sought. It had considered the materials placed before it and made findings of fact that were plainly open to it.
3. For liability as owner under section 6, a material interest includes a freehold interest whether beneficial or otherwise. The appellant's assertion that he had transferred the beneficial interest to his parents therefore did not displace the finding that he remained the registered freehold proprietor.
4. The Tribunal was entitled, having regard to all relevant evidence and the applicable authorities, to find that the property was the appellant's sole or main residence. Its function was appellate and fact-finding, rather than merely supervisory. Although the Tribunal referred to the Wednesbury principle, read fairly as a whole its decision rested on the appellant's failure to prove his case, not on the application of an erroneous judicial-review-only test.
5. The respondent's costs were summarily assessed at £5,250. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and occasioned by the appeal.

• Berkshire Valuation Tribunal: on 23 April 2002, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Council's Council Tax liability decision.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal and ordered payment of the respondent's costs, summarily assessed at £5,250.