Hakeem, R (on the application of) v Valuation Tribunal Service & Anor
The Tribunal did not err in law in its treatment of the tenancy agreement, residence issues, or evidential matters, and correctly found it had no jurisdiction to consider late service of demand notices. The appeal disclosed no error of law and must be dismissed.
- Parties
- Claimant: Abdul Hakeem; Defendant: Valuation Tribunal Service; Interested Party: London Borough of Enfield
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Council Tax Liability, Jurisdiction of Valuation Tribunal, Appeal on Question of Law
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdul Hakeem
Claimant
Valuation Tribunal Service
Defendant
London Borough of Enfield
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Valuation Tribunal erred in law in its determination of council tax liability for the property between 2002 and 2008
- 2 Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself regarding the tenancy agreement and residence of Ms Banyure
- 3 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider late service of demand notices
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal did not err in law in its treatment of the tenancy agreement, residence issues, or evidential matters, and correctly found it had no jurisdiction to consider late service of demand notices. The appeal disclosed no error of law and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to the Interested Party in the sum of £1,665
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment