R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council [2024] EWHC 701 (Admin) 26 March 2024 – Collins Rice J Summary – This case concerned Birmingham City Council’s charging policy which the claimant YVR contended discriminated “against people who, like him, are so disabled they cannot, and will never be able to, do any paid work.” Click on […]
R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council Read More »
Summary: The Irish Court of Appeal has ruled in a recent decision on the appropriate order it should make following a Declaration made by the Irish High Court in favour of the appellants, LW and RL. The High Court had refused various more detailed orders sought by the appellants, citing limitations on its jurisdiction, and
W & Anor v The Health Service Executive (Approved) [2023] IECA 244 Read More »
This case in the High Court details multiple examples of unlawful detention of individuals re-entering the UK because an unpublished Home Office policy wrongly suggested officers had the power to stop, detain and question individuals who have unpaid NHS debt. Background MXK and SXB were both foreign nationals and mothers of young children. Both had
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%2278630/12%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-220073%22]} The Swiss applicant, a widower, had ceased to be entitled to a widower’s pension upon his young daughter reaching the age of majority. A widow in the same situation would have been able to carry on receiving the pension. The applicant claimed that he had been discriminated against, relying on Article 14 read in
Beeler v Switzerland [ECHR] (Application no. 78630/12) Read More »
This was a challenge to Norfolk’s adult social care charging policy on the grounds that it discriminated against severely disabled people contrary to Article 14 ECHR (Human Rights Act). The challenge was brought on behalf of SH, a 24-year-old woman with Down’s Syndrome, Severe Learning Difficulties and Physical Disabilities who lived with her mother (MH).
Keywords: Housing Benefit; Human Rights This was an appeal against an Upper Tribunal judgement (and a preceding First Tier Tribunal’s judgement) which purported to disapply Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 reg. B13 (known as the Bedroom Tax regulations) in the case of a couple who could not share a bedroom, due to disability. The relevant Housing
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Sefton MBC (2018) Read More »
X was employed by a charity organising activities with young offenders, as a development officer. He was cautioned for an offence of gross indecency following an incident with another male in a public toilet, but did not tell his employer. When six months later, the employer learned of the incident, X was dismissed for gross
X v Y (11 June 2003) (EAT) Read More »
Mental health – nearest relative – human rights – discrimination In a case settled by consent and approved by the High Court on 22 October 2002, the government has accepted that the interpretation of the provisions for naming the ‘nearest relative’ under MHA 1983, discriminated against homosexual couples, contrary to art 14 of the European
SSG v Liverpool City Council (22 October 2002) (unreported) Read More »
n this case the Court of Appeal were asked to consider whether a foster child of a secure tenant could have the right to succeed her to the tenancy following her death. As a young baby Steven Wall had been placed by Sheffield City Council with Ms Wall as a foster placement. This developed into
Ms Elizabeth (‘the Claimant’) suffered from a severe form of Crohn’s disease, and her condition was deteriorating significantly. Her doctors at King’s College Hospital recommended that bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy was carried out, with the expectation of bringing the disease into remission. However, it was a probable outcome of this therapy that the Claimant would