R (on The Application of Navabi) v Chester Le Street DC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE ELIAS |
| Judgment Date | 02 October 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 796 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | NO: CO/428/01 |
| Date | 02 October 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 796 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATION COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
St Dunstan's House
Fetter Lane
London EC4A
Mr Justice Elias
NO: CO/428/01
The Claimant appeared in person
MR RICHARD MERRITT (instructed by Legal Department of Chester-le-Street District Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Tuesday 2nd October 2001
I have before me an appeal from the decision of the Durham Valuation Tribunal dated 1st December 2000, in which the tribunal dismissed the appeal of Mr Hesamedin Navabi and held that he was liable to pay council tax on the premises which he leased at 63 Middleton Close, Ouston in County Durham. Mr Navabi sought a review of that decision, but that was refused on 21st December 2000. He now appeals against the decision of the valuation tribunal to this court. It is common ground that the court can only interfere if the decision of the tribunal manifests an error of law.
The factual position, in essence, is this. The appellant is the proprietor of a leasehold flat at Middleton Close, which is a first floor flat with a garage. He acquired the interest in June 1989. It is a 99-year lease from 1st March 1976. On 2nd February he notified the council that he was going to live abroad for a few months (at that stage he thought it was four months) with effect from 1st February 2000.
On 17th March a form seeking further information was sent back to the council, signed by his father, dated 15th March. In that document it was said that the property had been left unfurnished; that Mr Navabi was living overseas temporarily and that it would be for a period of eight months; and it gave an address in the United States of America. It also indicated the majority of the possessions were at 17 Barberry Close in Pelton, which was the parents' address.
It seems that the council visited the property on occasions and considered that it was in fact being occupied and that it was furnished; but that was disputed by the appellant. Unfortunately, he was not able, for some reason, to attend the hearing before the valuation tribunal, but he did submit documents from his mother and his parents, and wrote a letter himself, which is set out in the determination of the tribunal.
The decision of the tribunal itself was that Mr Navabi was liable to pay council tax. That liability arose because of the construction of section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as applied to the facts of the case. I should set out the statutory provision briefly:
"6(1) The person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling on any day is the person who falls within the first paragraph of subsection (2) below to apply, taking paragraph (a) of that subsection first, paragraph (b) next, and so on.
(2) A person falls in this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling on any day if, on that day—
(a) he is a resident of the dwelling and has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of it;
(b) he is such a resident and has a leasehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling which is not inferior to another such interest held by any such resident."
Then I need not deal with (c) to (f). Then there is a definition of "resident" in subsection (5) as follows:
"'resident', in relation to any dwelling, means an individual who has attained the age of 18 years and has his sole or main residence in the dwelling."
Mr Navabi accepted, after some discussion on the point, that he fell within paragraph (b) if he were resident. He had raised some arguments based on the fact that he had a mortgage and that he only had a leasehold interest; but plainly they were misconceived arguments. The only question the tribunal had to consider is whether he was a resident falling within (b). He clearly had a leasehold interest which was not inferior to another such interest held by any other such resident. So the question is simply: was it his sole or main residence? He submits that for the period during which he was away from 1st February until 12th July it was not.
How then did the tribunal conclude that it was? Having set out the arguments advanced by the council and having, as I have indicated, referred to and set out the letter that was sent by Mr Navabi himself, it referred to the following points specifically: that Mr Navabi was the owner of Middleton Close, Ouston (strictly he was a leaseholder but on a 99-year lease but that was an accurate enough description); that he had a security of tenure; that the property was available to Mr Navabi should he return from his work; and it referred to the fact that High Court decisions involving the concept of sole or main residence, in such cases as Bradford v Anderton [1991] Rating Appeals 45 andWard v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council [1993] Rating Appeals 71, supported their conclusion.
The question is whether the tribunal could properly reach the conclusion that this was the sole or main residence. In my judgment not only did the evidence support that, but it would have been extremely difficult for them to have reached any other conclusion. It is plain here that Mr Navabi had security of tenure in this property; that it was where he usually lived; that he was only away temporarily —in the event it was some five-and-a-half months; and that compared with any other property that one might consider it was his sole or main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v Copeland Borough Council
...[1981] 1 WLR 452; Bradford Metropolitan City Council v Anderton [1991] 89 LGR 681; R (Navabi) v Chester Le Street District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 796; and Ward v Kingston upon Hull City Council [1993] RA 71. On the basis of those cases, the judge reasoned as follows (at paragraph 13) : "......