High Court sets aside council tax ruling by tribunal in Wales over procedural unfairness

The High Court has overturned a council tax ruling by the Valuation Tribunal for Wales on the grounds that its procedural unfairness amounted to a legal error.

Karen Medhurst, who appeared in person, had argued that a property in Barry was not occupied for council tax purposes at times when Vale of Glamorgan Council believed it was, and so should not be liable for council tax.

After hearing evidence from Mrs Medhurst and the council the tribunal concluded that she probably did live at the property in the period concerned and so it was occupied and thus not entitled to exemption from council tax.

Mrs Medhurst objected that the tribunal had refused to hear closing submissions, when it said it was satisfied it had a full understanding of the positions of both sides.

Giving judgment in Medhurst v Vale of Glamorgan Billing Authority [2019] EWHC 3792 (Admin), Mr Justice Swift said: “My conclusion is that there was unfairness amounting to an error of law.

“The failure to permit closing submissions was a matter of particular significance, because Mrs Medhurst did not have the opportunity to respond either to the council's case, or to make points arising from the evidence of the witness she had questioned or, indeed, her own evidence given in response to questioning in the earlier part of the appeal proceedings.”

The judge said written cases had not been exchanged prior to the hearing, and therefore Mrs Medhurst could not be expected to anticipate the council's case and deal with it in her opening remarks.

He said the tribunal’s claim that it had a thorough understanding of the parties' respective positions without hearing closing submissions was “not coherent” as “absent hearing closing submissions, it cannot be said that the tribunal could be confident that it did have a thorough understanding of the parties' final positions”.

Swift J said he could not conclude that closing submissions would have served no purpose, or could have made no difference to the outcome.

The tribunal’s decisions were set aside and the case must be re-heard.

Mark Smulian