Williams v Horsham District Council

For council tax purposes, a person’s “sole or main residence” under section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act must be premises in which that person actually resides. The main residence will usually be the dwelling which a reasonable onlooker, knowing the material facts, would regard as the person’s home at the relevant time.

Whether a former home retains that character during an absence is a question of fact and degree. Earlier decisions may identify relevant factors, but the significance given to a factor in one factual setting does not determine its weight in another. Security of tenure and an intention to return are therefore relevant considerations, rather than overriding rules of law.

Mr Williams and his wife owned Pump Cottage but lived for four and a half years at The Oaks, accommodation provided in connection with his employment. They moved most of their possessions there, never stayed overnight at Pump Cottage during that period and remained at The Oaks for nearly a year after the employment ended.

The West Sussex Valuation Tribunal decided that Pump Cottage remained their sole or main residence for council tax purposes. McCombe J allowed Mr Williams’s appeal, holding that the Tribunal had wrongly elevated security of tenure and an intention to return into overriding criteria, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

Horsham District Council appealed. The central issues were the meaning of “sole or main residence” in section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act, the proper use of factors derived from earlier cases, and whether the Tribunal’s conclusion could lawfully stand.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision could not stand. Applying the correct legal approach, no reasonable tribunal could have concluded that Pump Cottage, rather than The Oaks, was Mr and Mrs Williams’s main residence during the relevant period.

2. Section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act uses “residence” as part of the definition of a resident. In this context, “sole or main residence” refers to premises in which the taxpayer actually resides. The qualification “sole or main” recognises that a person may reside in more than one place.

3. No single definition of “main residence” will necessarily provide an appropriate test in every circumstance. Ordinarily, the main residence is the dwelling which a reasonable onlooker, knowing the material facts, would regard as the person’s home at the material time. If a person ceases to live in a former home for a period, whether it retains the character of a sole or main residence depends on the particular circumstances and is a matter of fact and degree.

4. Decided cases may assist by identifying relevant factors. A factor treated as particularly significant in one case does not necessarily carry the same weight in a different factual setting. The Tribunal may therefore have erred by treating security of tenure at Pump Cottage and the intention eventually to return there as having overriding legal importance.

5. The earlier occupational-absence cases were materially different. In each, the taxpayer’s spouse remained in the matrimonial home and the taxpayer returned there when free from employment obligations. By contrast, both spouses lived at The Oaks for four and a half years, never stayed at Pump Cottage, could readily have done so because the properties were close, and chose to remain at The Oaks at their own expense after the employment ended.

6. The Council was directed to pay Mr Williams the sums due because it had failed to grant the 50 per cent council tax discount applicable to Pump Cottage. The appeal was dismissed with costs to be agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 39, dismissed the Council’s appeal and directed it to pay the sums due because of its failure to grant the 50 per cent council tax discount.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: McCombe J allowed Mr Williams’s appeal on 26 June 2003. He held that the Tribunal had wrongly treated two relevant factors as overriding principles and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
3. West Sussex Valuation Tribunal: On 11 December 2002, held that Pump Cottage was Mr and Mrs Williams’s sole or main residence and that Mr Williams was liable for council tax accordingly.