Where a local government has enforced against a taxpayer's property for its own unpaid revenue, whose claims does the cost of that enforcement outrank?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file we read the local government's record of the delinquent revenue it collected, the papers showing that an enforcement measure was carried out against the taxpayer's property over that delinquency, and the itemised account of the costs the government says it incurred.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading keeps every condition together: where an enforcement measure is carried out on a taxpayer's property because revenue that a local government collects is unpaid, the cost of that enforcement is collected ahead of other local governments' collected revenue, national taxes and other claims, and it does so notwithstanding the rules on ranking the provision names.
Another reading marks the boundary: the priority runs only to the cost of an enforcement measure that this local government carried out over its own unpaid revenue, so costs attached to an enforcement by another body, or over revenue of a different kind, are not covered and the provision says nothing about ranking among national taxes and other claims.
Your judgment
What in the file shows that the costs claimed arose from this local government's own enforcement, rather than from a measure taken by another body?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to change which costs take priority or over which claims, or if a decision explains what counts as the cost of a direct enforcement measure.