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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll