Judgment
Mr Justice Walker :
Introduction
Council tax is governed by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (“ the 1992 Act ”). Provision is made in ss 6 and 7 as to who is normally liable to pay the tax. However under s 8 in prescribed cases the normal liability is overridden. The respondent said that arrangements made by the appellant in May 1998 for three people to live in his flat brought that flat within one of the prescribed cases, so as to make him liable to pay the tax. In a decision dated 10 January 2005 the Merseyside Valuation Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) agreed with the respondent. On 1 April 2005 the appellant lodged a notice of appeal in this court, including an application for an extension of the time permitted for such an appeal. The sole ground of appeal was that the tribunal misinterpreted the regulation defining the prescribed cases. The appellant’s argument before the tribunal had been that he should not be liable because the three individuals comprised a single household, and I shall call this ground of appeal “the Single Household issue”.
The appellant’s skeleton argument, due on 10 March 2006 but received by the respondent on 14 March 2006, dealt with the Single Household issue in paragraphs 1 to 11. Paragraphs 12 and 13 raised a point which did not feature in the appellant’s notice. This was that the respondent failed in its duty to serve a demand notice on him “as soon as practicable after the day the billing authority sets an amount of council tax for the relevant year.” I shall call this “the Demand Notice issue.” The respondent’s skeleton argument, due on 17 March 2006 but received by the appellant on 24 March 2006, said on the Demand Notice issue that if necessary the respondent would contend that the tribunal had concluded, and was entitled to conclude, that the appellant had not made out his case on the merits. I say “if necessary” because the respondent in relation to the Demand Notice issue sought to take a new point, saying that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider that issue. I shall call this new point “the Jurisdiction issue”.
At the outset of the hearing before me the respondent said that the appellant should not be permitted to raise the Demand Notice issue. The appellant said that an adjournment was needed to enable him to deal with the Jurisdiction issue. By agreement I heard oral submissions from the appellant, who appeared in person, on the Single Household issue and the Demand Notice issue. Mr Ranjit Bho
