Jagoo v Bristol City Council

The court held that the definition of a "full-time course of education" in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 must be applied to the course's normal requirements and not to the additional time a particular student requires because of a disability. The focus is on what the educational establishment normally requires of persons undertaking the course (hours and weeks), not on hours in fact undertaken by an individual student as a consequence of dyslexia or other impairments. The Valuation Tribunal for England's decision that the appellant was a part-time student and thus not entitled to the student exemption from council tax was not vitiated by error of law.

Although the appellant relied on the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that a disability-related increase in study time should be treated as part of the course requirement, the court found no unfavourable treatment arising from the disability by the billing authority: the fiscal test is objective and course-based. Reading additional words into the subordinate legislation to secure the exemption would go against the statutory scheme and raise practical difficulties.

Background and parties: The appellant, a part-time PhD student at the University of Exeter who is dyslexic, claimed she met the statutory definition of a full-time student because, by reason of her disability and the reasonable adjustments provided, she in fact spent more than 21 hours per week on study. Bristol City Council, the billing authority, determined she was not entitled to the student exemption from council tax. The Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed her appeal on 24 June 2016 and that decision was upheld on review. The appellant appealed to the High Court under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009.

Nature of the application / relief sought: The appellant sought to quash the decision denying student exemption, arguing (i) the additional hours reasonably required because of dyslexia should be counted in determining whether the course meets the definition of "full-time" in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992; (ii) treating her as part-time amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010; and (iii) the subordinate legislation should be read compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 and other international instruments so as to avoid discrimination.

Issues framed:

1. Whether paragraph 4(1) should be applied to the course's normal requirements or to the hours actually required of an individual student because of disability.
2. Whether refusing the exemption on the course-based ground amounted to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or incompatible treatment under the ECHR, requiring reading-in or reinterpretation of the subordinate legislation.

Court's reasoning and decision: The court concluded that paragraph 4(1) is directed at the normal requirements of the course and not at the individual circumstances of a student. The objective course-based test allows billing authorities to rely on institutional certification and avoids intrusive, case-by-case factual inquiries. The appellant's entitlement to reasonable adjustments from the university did not convert a part-time course into a full-time one for fiscal purposes. The court accepted that the student exemption is a possessory interest under Article 1 of Protocol 1 and that Article 14 protects against disability discrimination, but found no discriminatory treatment in the statutory scheme as applied. Further, the obligation to interpret domestic law compatibly with Convention rights did not justify reading-in the words proposed by the appellant because that would go against the grain of the legislation and produce practical consequences the court is not equipped to evaluate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed. The court ruled that paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 requires examination of the normal requirements of the course (weeks and average hours) rather than the additional hours an individual student needs because of disability; no unlawful discrimination was shown and it was not permissible to read in words to alter that scheme.

Appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissing the appellant's claim for a student exemption (decision dated 24 June 2016; review decision dated 21 July 2016). The High Court appeal was brought under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009.