AM, R (on the application of) v The City Council & Anor

AM, R (on the application of) v The City Council & Anor

The council's assessment and decision paid due regard to the needs set out in section 49A of the DDA. The council considered the claimant's disability, his need for assistance to attend university, and provided increased care services. The refusal to provide additional toileting equipment was justified by the low assessed risk and the availability of alternative measures. The decision was not flawed in law and did not breach the DDA duties.

Parties
Claimant: AM; Defendant: The City Council; Interested Party: The University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Community Care Assessment, Public Authority Duties, Equality of Opportunity, Education Access for Disabled Persons
Administrative Law Disability Law Community Care Law Disability Discrimination Community Care Assessment Public Authority Duties Equality of Opportunity Education Access for Disabled Persons

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Claimant

The City Council

Defendant

The University

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City Council's refusal to provide a mobile hoist for the claimant at university breached its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA)
  2. 2 Whether the University failed in its DDA duties by not arranging a second person to assist the claimant with transfers for toileting at university

Ratio Decidendi

The council's assessment and decision paid due regard to the needs set out in section 49A of the DDA. The council considered the claimant's disability, his need for assistance to attend university, and provided increased care services. The refusal to provide additional toileting equipment was justified by the low assessed risk and the availability of alternative measures. The decision was not flawed in law and did not breach the DDA duties.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review is dismissed
  • Council to revisit the assessment in light of new occupational therapist report and claimant's statement