PETITION OF AB FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2022] ScotCS CSOH_68 (20 September 2022)
The council's decision to decommission the Teviot Day Service was unlawful due to failure to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to consult service users, frustrating their legitimate expectation of consultation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ScotCS CSOH_68
- Parties
- Petitioner: AB; Respondent: Scottish Borders Council
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- decision reduced and declarator granted
- Legal Topics
- Public Sector Equality Duty, Consultation, Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Decommissioning of Public Services
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AB
Petitioner
Scottish Borders Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the council fulfilled its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 before deciding to decommission the Teviot Day Service
- 2 Whether the council conducted adequate consultation with service users, giving rise to a legitimate expectation
- 3 Whether the decision to close the service was unlawful due to failure to carry out a proper equality impact assessment
Ratio Decidendi
The council's decision to decommission the Teviot Day Service was unlawful due to failure to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to consult service users, frustrating their legitimate expectation of consultation.
Court Disposition
decision reduced and declarator granted
Orders
- The decision of 4 June 2019 relating to the Teviot Day Service is reduced.
- Declarator granted that the decision was unlawful for failure to perform statutory duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and for frustrating legitimate expectation of consultation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment