YVR, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 393 (08 April 2025)

YVR, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 393 (08 April 2025)

The Council's officers, as the actual decision-makers under the constitution, properly discharged the PSED when deciding not to change the charging policy; the duty is non-delegable but attaches to whoever makes the decision, not necessarily the Cabinet; the review process was sufficiently focused on equality issues; even if there had been a breach, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same given the Council's financial crisis.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 393
Parties
Appellant/claimant: THE KING ON THE APPLICATION OF YVR (a protected party, by his litigation friend YUL); Respondent/defendant: BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Sector Equality Duty, Disability Discrimination, Charging Policy for Adult Social Care, Judicial Review, Decision Making Powers
Public Law Equality Law Local Government Law Public Sector Equality Duty Disability Discrimination Charging Policy for Adult Social Care Judicial Review Decision Making Powers

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE KING ON THE APPLICATION OF YVR (a protected party, by his litigation friend YUL)

Appellant/claimant

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Birmingham City Council breached the public sector equality duty (PSED) in adopting its adult social care charging policy
  2. 2 Whether the relevant decision-maker discharged the PSED
  3. 3 Whether sufficient evidence was gathered regarding the impact on severely disabled persons

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's officers, as the actual decision-makers under the constitution, properly discharged the PSED when deciding not to change the charging policy; the duty is non-delegable but attaches to whoever makes the decision, not necessarily the Cabinet; the review process was sufficiently focused on equality issues; even if there had been a breach, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same given the Council's financial crisis.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed