header-logo header-logo

Tax scheme was irrational & discriminatory, court rules

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll