Jagoo v Bristol City Council

The student council-tax exemption depends on the normal requirements of the course, not on the hours an individual student actually spends studying. Additional support provided because of disability does not convert a part-time course into a full-time course.

The statutory scheme therefore does not discriminate merely because a disabled student requires additional study time or support. The court cannot use the interpretative duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to insert words which would alter the objective, course-based definition or create significant practical consequences for valuation tribunals.

The appellant, a postgraduate student with dyslexia, was enrolled on a part-time PhD course. She claimed that additional study time and support required because of her disability meant that she undertook at least 21 hours of study each week and therefore qualified for the council-tax exemption applicable to full-time students.

The billing authority refused the exemption, and the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed her appeal. The central issues were whether the statutory definition focused on the individual student’s actual requirements or the normal requirements of the course, and whether the Equality Act 2010 or Convention rights required a different interpretation.

1. The court permitted the late appeal under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. The test in [2014] 1 WLR 3926 was not directly applicable, and the delay caused no prejudice.

2. Paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 requires attention to the normal study, tuition or work-experience requirements of the course. It does not require an enquiry into the actual hours undertaken by each individual student. The approach in Wirral Borough Council v Farthing, [2008] EWHC 1919 (Ch), R (Feller) v Cambridge City Council, [2011] EWHC 1252 (Admin), and R (Hakeem) v London Borough of Enfield, [2013] EWHC 1026 (Admin), was accepted.

3. The appellant’s additional support was an entitlement arising from her disability, not a normal requirement of the course. The course accordingly remained a part-time course for the statutory purpose.

4. The refusal did not constitute discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The appellant was treated as a part-time student because she was enrolled on a part-time course, not because of her disability. No direct or indirect discrimination was established.

5. The student exemption was a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol 1, and disability was within the scope of Article 14. Nevertheless, the natural meaning of the statutory provisions created no discriminatory treatment. The interpretative obligation under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 could not justify inserting words which went against the grain of the legislation or created important practical repercussions requiring detailed individual enquiries.

6. The appeal disclosed no error of law and was dismissed. No order as to costs was made by agreement.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed; the tribunal’s refusal of the student council-tax exemption was upheld.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: appeal against the billing authority’s decision dismissed on 24 June 2016; review upheld on 21 July 2016.