R (W) v Birmingham CC [2011] EWHC 1147 Admin (Walker J): the council’s decision to restrict eligibility for adult care services to critical needs only had been unlawful because (1) in breach of section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the material provided to decision makers contained no attempt to assess the likely adverse impact on those with “only” substantial needs and the likely effect of the council’s proposed mitigating steps, and neither did it draw attention to the duty to have due regard to the needs set out in section 49A when considering what decision to reach, (2) the consultation process failed to attempt to elicit information about the likely adverse impact of the proposed changes and failed to provide consultees with adequate information about the precise nature of the proposed change in eligible needs and about the financial savings envisaged. Click here for the transcript.
G (By his litigation Friend) v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College Governors [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin) The refusal by the school to allow an exception to its school uniform policy, so that a pupil could wear his hair in cornrows on the basis of a family tradition was held to be indirect race discrimination lacking in justification. Some persons of African-Caribbean consider for reasons of culture and ethnicity that cutting hair is wrong and wear their hair in cornrows. In being turned away from school for wearing cornrows, the claimant had suffered a particular disadvantage. Click here for transcript.
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
R (on the application of McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 A local authority lawfully withdrew the provision of an overnight carer who helped the Claimant with access to a commode as part of community care provided in her home, in circumstances where it had assessed that her needs could be met by incontinence pads or sheets. There was no violation of article 8 ECHR and no breach of the protection provided against disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Click here for transcript.
@font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton, Norton and Norton [2011] EWCA Civ 834 The public sector equality duty under s 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 obliged a public authority to take into account the disabilities of a disabled person when carrying out any function and not only when exercising functions that concerned a disabled person under specific legislation. Click here for transcript.
@font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
R (on the application of TG (by her Litigation Friend Ronald Ganfield)), R (on the application of AH (by his Litigation Friend Janet Seamer)) v North Somerset District Council, Administrative Court, Laws LJ. A local authority had not acted unlawfully in respect of decisions taken regarding direct payments and directly arranged care services. There was no breach of the public sector equality duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Awaiting Transcript.
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
