BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG), R (on the application of) v Birmingham Children’s Trust

BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG), R (on the application of) v Birmingham Children’s Trust

The Defendant's payment of the Asylum Support rate (£196.24 per week) to the NRPF carer of British children, when the assessed welfare needs were higher and not statutorily capped, constituted unjustified similar treatment of persons in relevantly and significantly different situations, amounting to Thlimmenos discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. The Defendant failed to justify this by administrative convenience, practicality, or equality aims. The policy was manifestly unreasonable and unlawful under Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998.

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 allowed; declaration of unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR; quantum agreed and approved.
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Children Act 1989 Section 17, No Recourse to Public Funds (nrpf), Immigration Status and Welfare Entitlement, Statutory Interpretation, Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty
Public Law Human Rights Law Child Law Social Welfare Law Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Children Act 1989 Section 17 No Recourse to Public Funds (nrpf) Immigration Status and Welfare Entitlement +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 the Defendant's policy and payments to a NRPF carer of British children at the Asylum Support rate constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, read with Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998, by failing to differentiate between children in relevantly different situations (Thlimmenos discrimination)
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to meet the assessed welfare needs of the Claimant and his siblings as required by Section 17 Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's policy was justified by administrative convenience, practicality, or equality aims

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's payment of the Asylum Support rate (£196.24 per week) to the NRPF carer of British children, when the assessed welfare needs were higher and not statutorily capped, constituted unjustified similar treatment of persons in relevantly and significantly different situations, amounting to Thlimmenos discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. The Defendant failed to justify this by administrative convenience, practicality, or equality aims. The policy was manifestly unreasonable and unlawful under Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; declaration of unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR; quantum agreed and approved.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant's treatment of the Claimant was unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR and Section 6 HRA 1998.
  • Defendant to pay agreed sum of £10,000 as just satisfaction (approved by the court).