Gichura v Home Office & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 697 (20 May 2008)

Gichura v Home Office & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 697 (20 May 2008)

The provision of facilities and services to a detainee in an immigration detention centre, such as bedding, medical services, and access to facilities, constitutes the provision of services under Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as these are acts that could be performed by private persons and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 697
Parties
Appellant: Gichura; First Respondent: Home Office; Second Respondent: Kalyx (formerly referred to as 'and Anr')
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Decision in County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Provision of Services Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Scope of Discrimination Legislation in Detention Context, Governmental Functions Vs. Service Provision
Disability Discrimination Public Law Immigration Law Provision of Services Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Scope of Discrimination Legislation in Detention Context Governmental Functions Vs. Service Provision

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gichura

Appellant

Home Office

First Respondent

Kalyx (formerly referred to as 'and Anr')

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Decision in County Court

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The provision of facilities and services to a detainee in an immigration detention centre, such as bedding, medical services, and access to facilities, constitutes the provision of services under Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as these are acts that could be performed by private persons and are not excluded as purely governmental functions. The District Judge erred in striking out the claim on the basis that no services were provided within the meaning of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike-out order reversed
  • Claim to proceed on the basis that provision of facilities and services may constitute provision of services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, subject to concessions recorded