Mayer, R (on the application of) v Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

An appeal from a Valuation Tribunal to the High Court under the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 lies on a point of law only. A disagreement with a tribunal’s finding of fact does not establish an error of law. The court may intervene where a finding is totally irrational, unsupported by evidence, or based on an irrelevant consideration. Temporary absence from a dwelling does not necessarily end residence, but whether a person remains resident is ordinarily a question of fact. Where the tribunal’s findings support the statutory hierarchy of council-tax liability, the High Court must dismiss the appeal.

Mr Mayer appealed to the High Court under regulation 51(1) of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 against a Valuation Tribunal decision concerning liability for council tax at the former family home.

Mr Mayer’s mother owned the dwelling but had moved to residential care. The Valuation Tribunal found that she was no longer resident and concluded that Mr Mayer was liable under section 6(2)(e) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had made an error of law by finding that Mrs Mayer was no longer resident.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s jurisdiction under regulation 51(1) of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 was confined to errors of law.

2. The proposition that temporary absence from a residence does not necessarily prevent continued residence was accepted as correct. The decisive issue was factual: whether Mrs Mayer remained resident at the dwelling during the period beginning 1 April 2006.

3. The Valuation Tribunal was entitled to rely on the receiver’s written confirmation that Mrs Mayer had moved to a residential care home and no longer lived at the property. Its finding that she was no longer resident was supported by the material before it.

4. A tribunal’s finding of fact cannot be challenged merely because a party disagrees with it. Intervention is justified only where the conclusion is totally irrational, unsupported by evidence, or takes account of an irrelevant consideration. None of those grounds was established.

5. The possible dispute about whether residential care began in June 2004, January 2005 or January 2006 could not affect liability from 1 April 2006. Having found that Mrs Mayer was no longer resident, the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory hierarchy in section 6(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and concluded that Mr Mayer was liable under section 6(2)(e).

6. Costs followed the event. Mr Mayer was ordered to pay the Council’s legal costs, summarily assessed at £3,407.50.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — appeal dismissed. The decision of the Valuation Tribunal was upheld.