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

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

The appeal fails because the officers who made the decision not to change the charging policy were the relevant decision-makers under the Council's constitution and properly discharged the PSED; there was no requirement for the Cabinet to personally consider the duty; sufficient consideration was given to equality impacts; even if there had been a breach, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same due to the Council's financial crisis.

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
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / 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 8
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 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 appeal fails because the officers who made the decision not to change the charging policy were the relevant decision-makers under the Council's constitution and properly discharged the PSED; there was no requirement for the Cabinet to personally consider the duty; sufficient consideration was given to equality impacts; even if there had been a breach, it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same due to the Council's financial crisis.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no relief granted; no remission to the Council required.