Joanne Clement KC and Zoe Gannon have successfully represented the Local Authority, Birmingham City Council in a challenge to its decision making with regard to its policy of charging for care under the Care Act 2014.
The Claimant was a severely disabled young man who was provided with care and support by the Council under the 2014 Act. The Council, in accordance with its charging policy, charged him the maximum amount under the Act and the relevant charging regulations.
The Claimant’s challenge in the High Court was (i) that the charging policy was unlawful under Article 14 of the Convention, following the High Court decision in SH v Norfolk [2020] EWHC 3436, (ii) that it was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, and (iii) that the Council had failed in its public sector equality duty under (PSED) s.149 of the 2010 Act.
In the High Court, Collins-Rice J dismissed the Claimant’s claim, distinguishing Norfolk and finding that the policy was justified, and therefore not discriminatory under either Article 14 of the Convention or the 2010 Act and that there had been no breach of the PSED by the Council Officers when they decided to maintain the existing policy post Norfolk.
The Appeal focused on the alleged breach of the PSED.
The judgment of Males LJ (with whom King and Whipple LJJ agreed) dismissed the Appeal and provided useful guidance and reassurance for Council officers considering whether they are required to refer matters to Cabinet where there are equalities implications.
Joanne Clement KC and Zoe Gannon (along with John Bethell at an earlier stage) were instructed by Birmingham City Council.
A link to the judgment is here.
