Laurentiu Tarbuc v Dawn Bunyan (List Officer)

An appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England to the High Court under regulation 43 of the VTE Regulations lies on a question of law only. It is not a rehearing on the merits. The appellant must identify an irrational factual finding, a material legal misdirection, or reliance on irrelevant matters. A disagreement with the tribunal’s assessment of evidence or weight does not suffice.

Statutory time limits promote finality. A substantial delay, without a good reason and despite knowledge that time is running, will ordinarily justify refusing an extension. Specialist tribunals are the primary judges of fact, and appellate courts should show particular restraint when reviewing their evidence-based, multi-factorial evaluations.

The appellant appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision of 20 October 2022, which upheld the Listing Officer’s decision placing his property in Council Tax Band E. The property had originally been entered in Band D, but was reviewed after an extension and the appellant’s purchase of it.

The appellant issued his appeal to the High Court on 16 January 2023, outside the four-week period prescribed by regulation 43 of the VTE Regulations. He sought an extension of time and argued on the merits that the VTE had failed properly to consider plot size, flood risk and the presence of a garage when assessing the property’s hypothetical 1991 value.

The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the proposed grounds disclosed a question of law.

1. Extension of time. The appeal was substantially out of time. The appellant knew that time was running during the VTE review process, deliberately waited, and still filed his appeal six weeks after the review decision. The breach was significant and no good reason was advanced. Applying the approach summarised in Humphrey v Fenland DC and the three-stage test in Denton v TH White Ltd, no extension could properly be granted (paras [24]-[26]).
2. Scope of the statutory appeal. Regulation 43 permits an appeal to the High Court on a question of law only. The public law test includes whether the tribunal’s decision was irrational, whether it applied the wrong legal principles or asked the wrong question, and whether it took irrelevant matters into account. The appeal is not a rehearing on the merits (paras [12]-[15], [27], [31]).
3. Appellate restraint. The principles summarised in Ramdhun v Valuation Tribunal of England, Ramsay v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs, Edwards v Bairstow, Georgiou v Customs and Excise Commissioners, Proctor & Gamble UK v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department require particular caution before interfering with findings of fact, value judgments and multi-factorial assessments by specialist tribunals (para [15]).
4. Application to the merits. The VTE considered the relevant evidence, including plot size, flood risk and the garage, and was entitled to prefer comparable sales evidence close to the antecedent valuation date. The appellant’s case was, in substance, disagreement with the VTE’s factual assessment and expert judgment. It disclosed no question of law, patent error of law or finding incapable of justification on the evidence (paras [27]-[28], [34]-[36]).
5. The appeal was dismissed.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 20 October 2022, upheld the Band E assessment and dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
• Valuation Tribunal for England review: On 28 November 2022, the Vice President declined to review the decision, finding no procedural irregularity.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal. The application for an extension of time was refused and the merits challenge disclosed no question of law.