Jagoo v Bristol City Council

The court considered whether a part-time postgraduate student with a disability qualified for the council tax student exemption in Class N of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. The judgment interprets the definition of "full-time course of education" in Article 4 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 and Schedule 1 paragraph 4, adopting an objective test based on the hours that a student is required to perform to meet the course requirements.

The court held that hours which an educational establishment requires a particular student to undertake as a formally documented reasonable adjustment for disability may be treated as part of the hours "required by the educational establishment" and, where so documented and objectively necessary to meet the course requirements, count towards the 21 hours per week test. The court declined to permit a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act because the Crown had not been given the required notice. The case was remitted to the Valuation Tribunal for factual findings.

Background and parties. Ms Cecile Jagoo, a part-time MSc student at the University of Exeter living in Bristol, appealed against the refusal by Bristol City Council (the billing authority) to treat her dwelling as an exempt dwelling on the basis that she was a "student" within the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. The High Court (Holroyde J) and the Valuation Tribunal had held that additional study support provided to her because of dyslexia should not be counted for the 21-hours-per-week test.

Nature of the claim. The appellant sought recognition of a student's exemption from council tax (Class N) by treating additional, university-provided support as hours required by the educational establishment for the purposes of the definition of a "full-time course of education" in Article 4 and Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992.

Procedural posture. The appeal came from the Administrative Court: Ruling of Holroyde J [2017] EWHC 926 (Admin); the Valuation Tribunal had earlier found against the appellant. This Court heard argument and considered whether the statutory test should be interpreted to include formally documented reasonable adjustments provided to a disabled student.

Issues framed by the court.

• What is the meaning of "required by the educational establishment" and whether that may include implicitly required hours or formally documented reasonable adjustments provided to a disabled student;
• Whether the test requires focus on the normal requirements of the course as opposed to the actual hours worked by an individual student;
• Whether Human Rights or EU law arguments or the Equality Act required a different result;
• Whether recognising such adjustments would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on billing authorities.

Reasoning. The court interpreted the statutory language in context and by reference to authorities on analogous statutory definitions of full-time education. It adopted an objective test: a "requirement" may be implicit and consists of the hours a person must perform to meet the course requirements. Where a university has formally documented and provided additional hours as reasonable adjustments to enable a disabled student to meet the course requirements, those hours form part of the course requirement "by the educational establishment" and may be counted towards the 21 hours per week test. The court rejected reliance on discrimination or Charter arguments (the Charter did not apply and the Crown had not been notified so a declaration of incompatibility was not available). The court acknowledged administrative concerns but considered modest factual investigation justified where the additional hours are formally documented.

Disposition. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Valuation Tribunal to determine the facts and apply the statutory test in light of the court's interpretation.

This is an appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the hours which an educational establishment formally requires a particular student to undertake in order to meet the requirements of a course may include formally documented reasonable adjustments provided to a disabled student, and those hours may be counted for the purpose of the 21-hours-per-week test in Article 4 and Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the Valuation Tribunal for factual findings. A declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act was not available because the Crown had not been given the required notice.

On appeal from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (Holroyde J) [2017] EWHC 926 (Admin). Prior to the High Court the matter had been decided against the appellant by the Valuation Tribunal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the factual issues to the Valuation Tribunal.