Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 113 (Admin)
YVR (R on the application of) v Birmingham City Council
26 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 701 (Admin)
High Court
A disabled man sued the city council because its policy for charging for care services left him with very little money. While the council's policy might unfairly affect disabled people who can't work, the judge ruled the council was in such dire financial straits that they had no choice but to keep their policy. The judge noted that many factors contribute to the council's charges. The council's serious financial problems meant it could not afford to change its policies.
Key Facts
- •Claimant YVR, a severely disabled young man, challenges Birmingham City Council's policy on charging for adult social care.
- •The Council's policy charges the maximum amount permitted by the Care Act 2014, leaving the Claimant with minimal disposable income.
- •The Council is in a severe financial crisis, facing a significant budget deficit and government intervention.
- •The Claimant argues that the policy discriminates against severely disabled individuals unable to work, compared to those who can.
- •The case relies on Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) and the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Principles
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. The underlying right here is the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (income).
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1
A successful Article 14 claim requires showing different treatment from an analogous situation, based on a protected characteristic, without objective justification.
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] AC 51; In re McLaughlin [2018] 1 WLR 4250
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination in the exercise of public functions.
Equality Act 2010, sections 19 and 29
The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires public authorities to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations.
Equality Act 2010, section 149
In proportionality analysis (Bank Mellat test), a measure must have a sufficiently important objective, be rationally connected to it, be the least intrusive option, and not have effects outweighing the objective's importance.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (no.2) [2014] AC 700
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that while the Council's policy might indirectly discriminate, the Council's extreme financial circumstances and the lack of less intrusive alternatives justified its actions. The court emphasized the need for a balance between the claimant's rights and the Council's duty to manage its budget responsibly.
Similar Cases
BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG), R (on the application of) v Birmingham Children’s Trust
[2023] EWHC 137 (Admin)
RR, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Enfield
[2024] EWHC 2501 (Admin)
Michael Sherratt, R (on the application of) v Bolton Council
[2024] EWHC 699 (Admin)
RW v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
[2023] EWHC 1449 (Admin)