Domb & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Ors

Domb & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Ors

The Council did in substance, not just in form, have due regard to its equality duties under the relevant statutes when deciding to introduce charges for home care services. The consultation and equality impact assessment were adequate, and the limitation of options to charging or raising eligibility thresholds was not unlawful in the circumstances. There was no material failure of due regard to the equality duties.

Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Deborah Domb; Claimant / Appellant: Dulce Sobral; Claimant / Appellant: Moses Bushiwa; Defendant / Respondent: The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; Intervener: The Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Equality Duty, Race Equality Duty, Gender Equality Duty, Public Sector Equality Duty, Consultation Requirements, Budgetary Decision Making, Judicial Review Standards
Administrative Law Equality and Discrimination Law Local Government Law Disability Equality Duty Race Equality Duty Gender Equality Duty Public Sector Equality Duty Consultation Requirements +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Domb

Claimant / Appellant

Dulce Sobral

Claimant / Appellant

Moses Bushiwa

Claimant / Appellant

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Defendant / Respondent

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council had due regard to its statutory equality duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Race Relations Act 1976, and Sex Discrimination Act 1975 when deciding to introduce charges for home care services.
  2. 2 Whether the Council's equality impact assessment and report to cabinet were adequate to discharge those duties.
  3. 3 Whether the limitation of options to charging or raising eligibility thresholds was lawful in light of the equality duties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did in substance, not just in form, have due regard to its equality duties under the relevant statutes when deciding to introduce charges for home care services. The consultation and equality impact assessment were adequate, and the limitation of options to charging or raising eligibility thresholds was not unlawful in the circumstances. There was no material failure of due regard to the equality duties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed