BCD, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham Children's Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin) (26 January 2023)

BCD, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham Children's Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin) (26 January 2023)

The court held that Birmingham Children’s Trust’s policy of providing NRPF support at the same rate as asylum support to a British child cared for by a foreign national with NRPF was not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The comparators advanced by the Claimant (British vs non-British children;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 137 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG); Defendant: Birmingham Children’s Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Children Act 1989 S.17 Support, No Recourse to Public Funds (nrpf), Local Authority Duties, Immigration Status and Welfare, Zambrano Carers, Human Rights Act 1998 S.6
Public Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Child Law Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Children Act 1989 S.17 Support No Recourse to Public Funds (nrpf) Local Authority Duties +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG)

Claimant

Birmingham Children’s Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Birmingham Children’s Trust’s policy of providing NRPF support at the same rate as asylum support to a British child cared for by a foreign national with NRPF is unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, read with Article 8 ECHR and/or s.17 Children Act 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the Trust failed to meet the assessed welfare needs of the child under s.17 Children Act 1989.
  3. 3 Whether the comparators (British children vs non-British children; children with different immigration statuses; children with carers with different immigration statuses) are appropriate for Article 14 analysis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Birmingham Children’s Trust’s policy of providing NRPF support at the same rate as asylum support to a British child cared for by a foreign national with NRPF was not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The comparators advanced by the Claimant (British vs non-British children; children with different immigration statuses; children with carers with different immigration statuses) did not establish a relevant difference in situation for the purposes of Article 14, or any difference was objectively and reasonably justified. The Trust’s approach was rational and proportionate, and the support provided was not shown to be unlawfully inadequate or...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted to the Claimant
  • No declaration of unlawful discrimination