In R (AB) v BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL and ES and JX v DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL (2025) EWCC 1 a judicial review challenge failed to the entry by the Councils into “Safety Valve Agreements” with the Department of Education in relation to deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grant pursuant to Section 14 of the Education Act 2002. The allegations included breach of the duty to consult under Section 27(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 and of the PSED. Linden J accepted (para 18) that there was a “powerful reason” for the Councils to take steps to address their deficits at the times when they decided to participate in the Safety Valve Programme and to enter into their SVA.
PSED
April 10th, 2025 by charlotte in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyThe Appellant in R (YVR) v BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (2025) EWCA Civ 393 is a severely disabled young man who will never be able to work and who is dependent on state benefits. His eligible social care needs have been assessed and are met by Birmingham City Council, which charges him for the provision of those services, as it is entitled but not obliged to do by the applicable legislation, Section 14 of the Care Act 2014 and Regulations. The issue on the appeal was whether the Council’s charging policy was adopted in breach of the PSED on the ground that the Council failed to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity for severely disabled persons such as the Appellant. The Judge held that there was no breach of the PSED. The Appeal to the Court of Appeal failed.
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
April 9th, 2025 by charlotte in Land, Goods and ServicesThe Appeal in WHITE v ALDER (2025) EWCA Civ 392 is concerned with whether a boundary agreement binds successors in title and whether, if it is capable of doing so, it binds them only if they have knowledge of the agreement. Asplin LJ considered the relevant authorities at paras 21-53 inc. She concluded:-