header-logo header-logo

24 September 2025
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Tax , Local authority , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Tax scheme was irrational & discriminatory, court rules

A local authority council tax scheme ‘double counted’ a disability pension and carer’s allowance, the High Court has held

R (on the application of LL & AU) v Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin) concerned Trafford Council’s working age local council tax reduction scheme for the current tax year. Claimants LL and AU previously received a 100% reduction on their council tax, but in March they were each billed for the full amount.

They argued, first, the scheme was unlawfully adopted as the decision was taken by the executive committee rather than the full council. Second, its design was discriminatory since the means test ‘double counted’ certain benefits and pensions. LL’s private occupational pension and AU’s carer’s allowance reduced their actual income from universal credit but increased their deemed income under Trafford Council’s system.

Trafford Council accepted their system had flaws but attributed this to the software it used. While it had requested an amendment to the software, it was dealing with the issue by granting discretionary relief where necessary.

The claimants rejected the argument that only the software was flawed, and contended the issues were inherent in the scheme itself. Moreover, many residents were at risk of discretionary relief being denied.

Quashing the scheme and ordering the claimants be compensated, Judge Pearce said: ‘A scheme which requires the exercise of discretionary support is not sufficient to rescue it from a finding of irrationality.’

Judge Pearce noted that, to receive discretionary support, ‘a person has to make application to a potentially limited fund that makes usually short-term award payments and from which application there is no right of appeal’.

Carolin Ott, senior associate at Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said: ‘The council must go back to the drawing board and ensure that a lawful and fair scheme is put in place.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll