Williams v Horsham District Council
2004
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
- LORD JUSTICE KEENE
Areas of Law
- Tax Law
- Administrative Law
2004
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr Williams, a housemaster at Hurstpierpoint College, and his wife lived at The Oaks, college-provided accommodation, from January 1993 to July 1997, leaving Pump Cottage unoccupied except for maintenance visits. The West Sussex Valuation Tribunal held in December 2002 that Pump Cottage was their sole or main residence, making Mr Williams liable for Council Tax without discount. McCombe J allowed Mr Williams’ appeal in June 2003, finding the Tribunal wrongly elevated security of tenure and intention to return based on case law, and remitted the matter. Horsham District Council appealed. The Court of Appeal held that 'main residence' means where one actually lives, applying a reasonable onlooker test; on the facts, The Oaks was their home. The court dismissed the Council’s appeal and directed payment of sums due from failure to apply the 50% discount at Pump Cottage.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD PHILLIPS, MR: This is the judgment of the court. Introduction
2. The respondent, Mr Williams, owns cottage called Pump Cottage, Henfield, West Sussex where he now lives in retirement with his wife. Between January 1993 and August 1996 Mr Williams was employed as a housemaster by Hurstpierpoint College ("the College"). The College provided him with a house at Hurstpierpoint called The Oaks. Mr Williams and his wife lived at The Oaks during this period. They stayed on there, by agreement with the College, until July 1997. By a decision dated 11 December 2002 the West Sussex Valuation Tribunal held that Mr Williams had to pay Council Tax in respect of Pump Cottage on the grounds that he and his wife had their sole or main residence there during this period. It is Mr Williams' contention that he and his wife had their main residence at The Oaks.
3. By a judgment dated 26 June 2003, McCombe J allowed an appeal by Mr Williams against the Tribunal's decision. He held that the Tribunal had erred in their decision in that they had wrongly treated themselves as bound by case precedent to treat two of the relevant factors that they considered as of overriding importance. He remitted the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
4. The Horsham District Council now appeals against McCombe J's judgment with permission granted by Sedley LJ on 15 August 2003. The Council contends that the weight to be attached to the relevant factors was a matter for the Tribunal and it was not open to McCombe J to set aside the Tribunal's decision on the ground that disproportionate weight had been attached to two of those factors.
The Facts
5. Before Mr and Mrs Williams moved to The Oaks, they were registered with a doctor and dentist in the neighbourhood of Pump Cottage. They remained so registered after their move. They were on the electoral roll for Pump Cottage, but also had their names placed on the roll for The Oaks. The College provided The Oaks part furnished. Mr and Mrs Williams moved most of their belongings and furniture from Pump Cottage to the Oaks. They left some furniture at Pump Cottage in case they should choose to stay there in the holidays. In fact they did not do so. Neither of them spent as much as a night in Pump Cottage during the relevant period, although Mr Williams paid periodic visits to it for the purpose of maintenance and in order to mow the lawn. When Mr Williams' employment as housemaster came to an end in August 1996, t