Parry v Derbyshire Dales District Council No. 2

Where a tribunal has made the relevant factual findings and the evidence could have been presented at the original hearing, the court should not ordinarily remit the matter for a rehearing permitting new evidence. A council-tax liability assessment must reflect the facts found and the statutory meaning of residence. A successful litigant in person may recover the properly assessed costs of the appeal, but an extravagant or excessive claim may require detailed assessment. Costs caused by a misconceived interlocutory application may be set off against the costs payable to the successful party.

This was an appeal concerning Mr Parry’s liability for council tax in respect of Ivanhoe Cottage. The court had previously quashed the Tribunal’s decision and concluded that Mr Parry was the owner of the cottage but was not resident there during the relevant period.

The court considered the consequential order, including whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing on the basis of further or new evidence, and the parties’ competing costs submissions.

1. Disposition. The court declined to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. On the facts found by the Tribunal, Mr Parry was not resident at Ivanhoe Cottage within the meaning of section 6 of the 1992 Act. His council-tax liability was therefore to be assessed on the basis that he owned, but was not resident in, the cottage.
2. The Council had had the opportunity to place before the Tribunal all relevant evidence concerning residence. The Tribunal had found that, after termination of Mr Parry’s employment in Spain, he sought alternative employment there. That finding was inconsistent with residence at the cottage. It would therefore be wrong to permit a new hearing at which possibly new evidence could be adduced.
3. Mr Parry was entitled in principle to the costs of the appeal. His claim was excessive and included items outside the costs of the appeal. The costs were accordingly to be determined by a costs judge on detailed assessment, unless agreed. He might not recover the costs of that assessment and could, in certain circumstances, be liable for the Council’s costs.
4. The interlocutory application seeking admission of evidence not before the Tribunal was misconceived. Mr Parry was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by that application, to be assessed and set off against the costs payable by the Council.

The judgment states that the court’s order dated 5 May 2006 quashed the Tribunal’s decision. This judgment determined the consequential order, including costs and whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing.