Barwick & Anor v Bridgend County Borough Council

Barwick & Anor v Bridgend County Borough Council

The Council's consultation process was fair and lawful, as it was conducted at a formative stage, consultees were given sufficient information and time, and their views were conscientiously considered. The Council had substantive due regard to its disability equality duties under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, both in process and in substance, even if express reference to the duty was limited. The decision to close the care home was not predetermined and was made after proper consultation.

Parties
Claimant: Alice Barwick; Claimant: Margaret Rusz; Defendant: Bridgend County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Consultation Requirements, Legitimate Expectation, Disability Equality Duty, Closure of Care Homes, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Disability Law Local Government Law Consultation Requirements Legitimate Expectation Disability Equality Duty Closure of Care Homes Judicial Review Procedure

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alice Barwick

Claimant

Margaret Rusz

Claimant

Bridgend County Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's consultation process regarding the closure of Troed y Ton Care Home was lawful and procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the Council had due regard to its duties under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when deciding to close the care home

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's consultation process was fair and lawful, as it was conducted at a formative stage, consultees were given sufficient information and time, and their views were conscientiously considered. The Council had substantive due regard to its disability equality duties under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, both in process and in substance, even if express reference to the duty was limited. The decision to close the care home was not predetermined and was made after proper consultation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed