Jagoo v Bristol City Council

The requirement that a full-time course involve an average of at least 21 hours a week is not confined to hours expressly instructed by the educational establishment. Under paragraph 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, a requirement may be implicit in the work needed to complete the course. There is no bright-line distinction between a requirement and a recommendation. The normal requirement is assessed objectively. It excludes an individual student's idiosyncratic performance, but may reflect a modified course for a disability-related subgroup. Formally documented additional study support which the student must undertake to meet the modified course requirements may count. Billing authorities may make modest further enquiries beyond the statutory certificate.

Ms Jagoo, a student with dyslexia, sought a council tax student exemption. Her university certified her as a part-time student but did not state the hours of study required. The university provided additional study-skills and proofreading support as disability-related reasonable adjustments.

The Valuation Tribunal and Holroyde J held that the additional support could not be counted because the relevant question concerned what the educational establishment normally required, rather than what an individual student actually did. The High Court decision is reported at [2017] EWHC 926 (Admin) and [2017] PTSR 888. The appeal concerned the meaning of the requirement for a full-time course to involve at least 21 hours of study, tuition or work experience each week.

Disposition. Lewison LJ, with Floyd LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson agreeing, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Valuation Tribunal for findings of fact. The Court of Appeal decided the point of principle without determining whether all of Ms Jagoo's factual evidence would ultimately succeed.

1. The definition of a full-time course had to be interpreted in the context of tertiary education. It should advance the distinction between full-time and part-time students and avoid formal distinctions which elevate form over substance. The requirement that students be normally required by the educational establishment to undertake study need not be expressly enumerated or accompanied by a sanction. It may be implicit in the work necessary to complete assigned course requirements. There was no bright-line distinction between a requirement and a recommendation. This approach was preferred to the approach taken in R (Hakeem) v Enfield LBC [2013] EWHC 1026 (Admin).
2. The word normally introduced an objective measure. The relevant question was the hours normally required for the relevant course, or for a defined subgroup following a modified course. The individual student's diligence, indolence or actual performance was not determinative.
3. Where disability-related support was formally documented as an adjustment to the course, and the student practically needed to undertake it to meet the modified course requirements, that support could form part of the course. The course in such a case comprised the ordinary course together with the additional support. The Tribunal would have to determine the facts, including the position concerning proofreading support.
4. The statutory certificate did not state the number of study hours and was not conclusive. A billing authority could make modest further enquiries, although the conclusion was confined to additional hours formally documented by the educational establishment.
5. The Council had no discretion to remit tax where the statutory scheme required collection. The Equality Act arguments therefore failed. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Council Directive 2000/78/EC did not apply to local tax collection. A declaration of incompatibility was unavailable because the Crown had not received the required notice under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR Part 19.4A(1), although the Human Rights Act remained a legitimate aid to interpretation.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Valuation Tribunal.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court: in [2017] EWHC 926 (Admin), reported at [2017] PTSR 888, upheld the conclusion that the additional study-skills and proofreading support did not count towards the required hours.
• Valuation Tribunal: held that the additional support could not be counted and that Ms Jagoo was not entitled to the student exemption.