Gardiner, R (on the application of) v Swindon Borough Council

An appeal from a valuation tribunal to the High Court under regulation 51 of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Amendment Regulations 1993 lies only on a question of law. Complaints which merely challenge the tribunal’s assessment of evidence or findings of fact concern the merits and do not establish an error of law. A tribunal’s factual conclusion will stand unless it is legally flawed or irrational in the Wednesbury sense. Matters outside the issue determined by the tribunal cannot be pursued on the statutory appeal.

Mr Gardiner appealed against the Wiltshire Valuation Tribunal’s dismissal of his challenge to Swindon Borough Council’s decision that Ms Rouse was liable for council tax in respect of a property owned by him. The central factual issue was whether Ms Rouse lived there as his housekeeper or lived with him as husband and wife. The tribunal accepted the council’s case on the balance of probabilities. Before the High Court, Mr Gardiner raised complaints about the council’s absence from the tribunal hearing, earlier magistrates’ proceedings, documentary evidence and the wider history of the dispute.

The issue was whether those matters disclosed an error of law in the tribunal’s decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under regulation 51 of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Amendment Regulations 1993, an appeal from the tribunal to the High Court lies on a question of law only.
2. The complaints concerning whether Ms Rouse was the claimant’s housekeeper, or was living with him as husband and wife, challenged the merits of the tribunal’s decision and its assessment of the evidence. They disclosed no arguable error of law.
3. The tribunal was entitled to decide the factual issue after hearing the claimant’s evidence and considering the council’s written documents. The absence of a council representative did not require an adjournment, particularly since the claimant had not applied for one and had been able to give evidence about the matters in the council’s affidavit.
4. The tribunal was right to treat alleged errors in earlier magistrates’ proceedings and other matters in the history of the dispute as irrelevant to the issue before it. They were likewise irrelevant to the High Court appeal.
5. The tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant and Ms Rouse gave the impression of living together as man and wife could not be characterised as Wednesbury unreasonable. The appeal was misconceived and without merit.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the council’s reasonable costs in the sum of £2,937.50, including VAT.

1. Wiltshire Valuation Tribunal: On 25 June 2002, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the council’s decision that Ms Rouse was liable for council tax.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal because no error of law was shown and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent’s costs.