Moghaddam v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

On a statutory appeal on a point of law, a tribunal must deal fairly with allegations that evidence is false or sham. If dishonesty is a material possibility, it should be put clearly to the party concerned. The tribunal must also give sufficient reasons for rejecting important evidence, particularly where its reasoning implies fraud or deception.

An instrument described as a lease is not necessarily a lease. The court must consider its substance and terms. An agreement reserving control of the property to the owner and denying the supposed tenant any estate or interest may instead be a property-management agreement.

The claimant appealed under regulation 51 of the Valuations and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 against a decision of the London Southwest Valuation Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed her appeal against the Council’s decision that she was liable for council tax on two flats.

The claimant relied on a purported lease of the whole property to her father and on tenancy agreements said to show that the flats had been let to other occupiers. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had fairly assessed those documents, whether it had adequately explained its conclusions, and whether the appeal was out of time.

1. The appeal was allowed and remitted to the Valuation Tribunal for redetermination. The claimant had not received the Council’s decision letter of 19 July 2007, so the proposed time-bar point did not arise.

2. The purported lease to the claimant’s father was ineffective as a lease. Although it used the language of a lease, its terms reserved control of the property to the claimant, denied the parties the rights and obligations of landlord and tenant, and contemplated that the flats would be let to others. In substance, it was an agreement for the father to manage the property.

3. In Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406, Lord Hoffmann had stated that a lease or tenancy involves an agreement giving exclusive occupation for a fixed or renewable period, usually in return for payment. Applying that approach, the father had not been granted exclusive occupation.

4. The Tribunal had implicitly treated the tenancy agreements with Mr Farid and Miss Ali as fake or sham agreements. That possibility had not been put fairly to the claimant during the hearing. The Tribunal also failed to explain adequately why those agreements, and related evidence, were rejected, particularly when a materially similar tenancy to Miss Poojari had been accepted by the Council.

5. Fairness required a party to be given an opportunity to answer a serious allegation of dishonesty. Adequate reasons were also required for rejecting an important aspect of the case. The Tribunal’s errors were material, and the factual issues had to be reconsidered by the Tribunal.

1. London Southwest Valuation Tribunal: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the Council’s council-tax liability decision on 18 July 2008.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the statutory appeal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination.