Amanda Hitchings (Listing Officer) v Patricia Orton

For the purpose of Regulation 4(5)(b) of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009, a determination by a predecessor valuation tribunal is treated as a determination by the Valuation Tribunal for England. Statutory interpretation is a unified exercise requiring text, context and legislative purpose to be considered together. The unification of valuation tribunals did not alter the substantive scheme governing repeat proposals to change council tax bands. A valid appeal and the tribunal’s power to strike out an appeal are distinct. The appeal was allowed and the later proposal declared invalid.

The Listing Officer appealed under Regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 against an interim decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 25 March 2025. The dispute concerned a taxpayer’s proposal to reduce the council tax band of a flat.

The property had previously been placed in Band B by the Teesside Valuation Tribunal in 2004. The VTE held that the earlier determination did not invalidate the later proposal because Regulation 4(5)(b) referred to a determination by the VTE or the High Court, rather than by a predecessor valuation tribunal. The central issue was whether that reference included determinations made by former valuation tribunals before the VTE was established.

1. Appeal allowed. The interim decision of the VTE dated 25 March 2025 was quashed, and the respondent’s proposal dated 18 May 2024 was declared invalid.

2. Statutory interpretation requires a unified consideration of text, context and purpose. The court must construe statutory language in the way that best gives effect to legislative purpose.

3. The overarching purpose of the changes made by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 was to replace 56 valuation tribunals with a single statutory body. That administrative change did not alter the substantive scheme limiting proposals to alter council tax bands.

4. Regulation 4(5)(b), read in context, includes a proposal previously considered and determined by a predecessor valuation tribunal. This followed from the transfer of jurisdiction, inconsistent references elsewhere in the Regulations, the continuing importance of settled comparable assessments and the absence of any indication that the established valuation scheme was intended to change.

5. Validity and strike-out are fundamentally different. If a proposal is invalid, the VTE has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Strike-out is a separate procedural power available after a valid appeal has arisen.

6. It was unnecessary to decide the alternative argument based on correcting an obvious drafting error. If required, Regulation 4(5)(b) could be read as referring expressly to a determination by either a valuation tribunal or the VTE. Rectification requires the court to be abundantly sure of the intended purpose, the inadvertent failure to give effect to it, and the substance of the provision Parliament would have made.

The judgment describes a statutory appeal to the High Court under Regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 25 March 2025, the VTE held the respondent’s proposal valid, following LW v Moore.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed. The VTE’s interim decision was quashed and the proposal was declared invalid.