SH, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council & Anor (Rev 1)

SH, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council & Anor (Rev 1)

The Council's charging policy has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on severely disabled persons, including SH, by taking a higher proportion of their income (from higher needs-based benefits and no access to disregarded earnings) compared to less severely disabled persons. This difference in treatment is not objectively justified, is not rationally connected to the Council's aims, and is manifestly without reasonable foundation, thus breaching Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1.

Parties
Claimant: SH (acting through her mother and litigation friend MH); First Defendant: Norfolk County Council; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Equality Act 2010, Care Act 2014, Local Authority Charging Policies
Public Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Social Welfare Law Disability Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Equality Act 2010 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SH (acting through her mother and litigation friend MH)

Claimant

Norfolk County Council

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's charging policy discriminates against severely disabled persons contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1 and/or Article 8
  2. 2 Whether the charging policy indirectly discriminates against adults with Down Syndrome contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment is objectively justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's charging policy has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on severely disabled persons, including SH, by taking a higher proportion of their income (from higher needs-based benefits and no access to disregarded earnings) compared to less severely disabled persons. This difference in treatment is not objectively justified, is not rationally connected to the Council's aims, and is manifestly without reasonable foundation, thus breaching Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Order setting aside the First Defendant's decision(s) to charge the Claimant pursuant to the Charging Policy
  • Order requiring the First Defendant to amend and/or withdraw the Charging Policy to remove the discriminatory impact