Hakeem, R (on the application of) v The Valuation Tribunal Service & Anor

Permission for a second appeal is granted only where the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, under CPR 52.13. A tribunal’s findings of fact cannot be challenged on a point of law merely because the evidence might be assessed differently. The relevant question is whether the findings were reasonably open on the evidence. An incorrect statutory reference will not invalidate a decision where the error is immaterial and the essential reasoning and outcome remain sound.

The applicant was assessed by the London Borough of Enfield as liable for council tax on a property between 1 August 2002 and 17 January 2008. He argued that a tenant had been resident and liable for part of that period. The London North West Valuation Tribunal found that the tenant was resident only until 30 August 2003 and that the applicant was thereafter liable as owner.

The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court on a point of law. Cox J dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported at [2010] EWHC 152 (Admin). The applicant then sought permission for a further appeal, challenging the tribunal’s factual findings, its treatment of the statutory liability hierarchy, and the period of liability.

Permission refused. Lord Justice Richards held that the application concerned a second appeal. Under CPR 52.13, permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Those criteria were not met. The application would also have failed under the less restrictive criteria applicable to a first appeal.

1. The tribunal’s factual findings were not open to challenge on a point of law unless they were findings that were not reasonably open on the evidence. Assessment of witnesses and other evidence was for the tribunal. Its conclusions concerning the tenant’s residence and the absence of any later resident were reasonable.
2. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the statutory hierarchy in section 6 determined liability according to residence and ownership. A resident freeholder fell within section 6(2)(a). A resident tenant fell within section 6(2)(b) or (c). The argument that the tenant could be treated as a freeholder through regulation 6(5) of the Valuation and Community Charge Regulations 1989 was untenable.
3. The tribunal had incorrectly referred to section 6(2)(a), but that error was immaterial. Its essential reasoning was that the tenant was resident and liable until August 2003, and that the owner was liable thereafter because nobody was resident.
4. The tribunal’s decision on the appeal could not extend the period for which the council had determined the applicant liable. If the council’s determination ended on 1 November 2007, dismissal of the appeal did not alter that date.
5. Applications under CPR Part 18 for further information and specific disclosure had no part to play in an appeal limited to an error of law. They had not been raised below, and would not in any event be entertained before permission was granted and their necessity established.

The application for the tribunal to state a case was withdrawn. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Richards refused permission for a second appeal.
2. Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Cox J dismissed the applicant’s appeal on a point of law: [2010] EWHC 152 (Admin).
3. London North West Valuation Tribunal: On 14 July 2009, the tribunal found the tenant resident only until 30 August 2003 and held the applicant liable as owner thereafter.