Bennett, R (on the application of) v Copeland Borough Council
A person cannot be a resident of a property for council tax purposes under section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 unless he has actually lived in it; ownership, intention to return, or lack of other property do not suffice without actual residence.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: George Bennett; Defendant/respondent: Copeland Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Council Tax Liability, Definition of Residence, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Bennett
Claimant/appellant
Copeland Borough Council
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether ownership of a property without actual residence can constitute 'sole or main residence' for council tax liability under section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992
- 2 Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in law by holding that factors other than actual residence could suffice for council tax liability
Ratio Decidendi
A person cannot be a resident of a property for council tax purposes under section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 unless he has actually lived in it; ownership, intention to return, or lack of other property do not suffice without actual residence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused
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