Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 834 (21 July 2011)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 834 (21 July 2011)

The Council was in breach of its duty under section 49A(1)(d) DDA by failing to have due regard to the needs of the disabled occupant before commencing possession proceedings. However, the breach did not require the possession order to be set aside because the Council could remedy the breach by giving proper consideration to its duties at a later stage, and the pressing need for the property justified the order. The Council must now comply with its duties under the Housing Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to suitable accommodation for the disabled occupant.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 834
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Defendant/appellant: Darren Norton; Defendant/appellant: Louise Norton; Defendant/appellant: Samantha Norton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Sector Equality Duty, Possession Proceedings, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Equality Act 2010, Article 8 ECHR, Homelessness, Proportionality, Judicial Review as Defence
Public Law Housing Law Disability Law Human Rights Public Sector Equality Duty Possession Proceedings Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Equality Act 2010 +4 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

Darren Norton

Defendant/appellant

Louise Norton

Defendant/appellant

Samantha Norton

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council breached its duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by failing to have due regard to the needs of a disabled occupant before seeking possession
  2. 2 Whether making a possession order was disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was in breach of its duty under section 49A(1)(d) DDA by failing to have due regard to the needs of the disabled occupant before commencing possession proceedings. However, the breach did not require the possession order to be set aside because the Council could remedy the breach by giving proper consideration to its duties at a later stage, and the pressing need for the property justified the order. The Council must now comply with its duties under the Housing Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to suitable accommodation for the disabled occupant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order affirmed
  • Council to give proper consideration to duties under Equality Act 2010 and Housing Act 1996 regarding suitable accommodation for the disabled occupant