Gichura v Home Office & Anor

Gichura v Home Office & Anor

Provision of facilities and services to detainees, such as bedding, medical services, and access to toilets, constitutes provision of services under Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, even if incidental to detention, because such acts are not exclusively governmental and could be performed by private persons. The District Judge erred in striking out the claim on the basis that these were not services within the meaning of the Act.

Parties
Appellant: Gichura; First Respondent: Home Office; Second Respondent: Kalyx (formerly referred to as 'ANR')
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Decision in Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination in Detention, Provision of Services Under Disability Discrimination Act, Governmental Functions and Discrimination Legislation
Disability Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Disability Discrimination in Detention Provision of Services Under Disability Discrimination Act Governmental Functions and Discrimination Legislation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gichura

Appellant

Home Office

First Respondent

Kalyx (formerly referred to as 'ANR')

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Decision in Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision of facilities and services to a disabled detainee in an immigration detention centre constitutes 'provision of services' under Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether such functions are excluded as purely governmental functions

Ratio Decidendi

Provision of facilities and services to detainees, such as bedding, medical services, and access to toilets, constitutes provision of services under Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, even if incidental to detention, because such acts are not exclusively governmental and could be performed by private persons. The District Judge erred in striking out the claim on the basis that these were not services within the meaning of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike-out decision reversed; claim to proceed on the basis that provision of facilities and services to detainees is provision of services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, subject to concessions recorded.