W, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council

W, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council

The Council failed to pay due regard to the disability equality duty under s 49A by not adequately assessing the impact of restricting eligibility to 'critical' needs only, failing to consider alternatives, and not providing sufficient detail or mitigation measures in its consultation and decision-making processes. The decisions of 1 and 14 March 2011 regarding the New Offer for Adult Social Care were unlawful and cannot stand.

Parties
Claimant: W; Claimants: M, G and H; Defendant: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Challenge succeeds; decisions unlawful
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Public Sector Equality Duty, Consultation Requirements, Adult Social Care, Budgetary Decisions, Resource Allocation
Administrative Law Equality Law Local Government Law Disability Law Disability Discrimination Public Sector Equality Duty Consultation Requirements Adult Social Care +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Claimant

M, G and H

Claimants

Birmingham City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Birmingham City Council complied with the disability equality duty under s 49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when changing eligibility criteria for adult social care
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to ask itself the right questions regarding the impact of restricting eligibility to 'critical' needs only
  3. 3 Whether the consultation process met common law standards and procedural requirements under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to pay due regard to the disability equality duty under s 49A by not adequately assessing the impact of restricting eligibility to 'critical' needs only, failing to consider alternatives, and not providing sufficient detail or mitigation measures in its consultation and decision-making processes. The decisions of 1 and 14 March 2011 regarding the New Offer for Adult Social Care were unlawful and cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Challenge succeeds; decisions unlawful

Orders

  • Decisions of 1 and 14 March 2011 regarding the New Offer for Adult Social Care quashed
  • Parties to agree appropriate consequential order