The 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.

Read more »

In SULLIVAN v ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL (2025) EWCA Civ 379, Underhill LJ observed, at paragraph 115, that it is often the case in claims based on Article 14 of the Convention that issues of analogous position, status and objective justification overlap.  Lewis LJ reiterated, from paragraph 26, that:-

• Article 14 can be considered only in conjunction with the enjoyment of one or more of the substantive rights or freedoms set out in the Convention; and
• In general terms, the approach to the question of whether differential treatment is contrary to Article 14 involves consideration of four broad issues:
• does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the Convention rights?;
• has the person making the claim been treated less favourably than other people who are in an analogous, or relevantly similar, situation?;
• is that difference in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic amount to a status?; and
• is the difference in treatment objectively justifiable? That in turn involves consideration of whether the measure giving rise to the differential treatment pursues a legitimate aim and whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The burden is on those seeking to contend that measures are objectively justified to demonstrate that this is so.

Read more »

In N.S, v UK, Judgment 25 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights is concerned about the making of a final adoption order and compliance with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The issue ( paras 159/160 ) was whether the order was necessary in a democratic society. The Court set out (paras 165-171 ) the general principles relevant to child welfare measures. The Court finds no violation of Article 8.

In R ( RWU ) v ACADEMY GB (2025 ) EWCA Civ 147 it is held that the trigger or threshold test for identifying a case of  potential CHILD CRIMINAL EXPLOITATION is whether the state authorities were aware or ought to have been aware of circumstances giving rise to a credible suspicion that the child concerned had been trafficked or exploited or that there was a real and immediate risk of their being trafficked.

In AHMED v AKBAR ( 2024 ) EWHC 2433 ( KB ) injunctive relief , pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, was granted, in a claim for misuse of private and confidential information concerning the claimant’s financial affairs, where there was an unacceptable risk of further publication by the defendant. Article 8 of the ECHR was held on the balance of probabilities to outweigh Article 10.

In QX v SSHD ( 2024 ) UKSC 26 a seven Justice Supreme Court emphasizes both Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the common law right to a fair trial. As regards the latter, at paragraph 53, the Court states that the “fundamental importance “ of the domestic right should not be disregarded. The object of ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS is to do justice according to law. Doing justice involves not only arriving at a just result but arriving at it in a JUST MANNER. The essential ingredients of a fair trial can vary according to the subject matter and the nature of the proceedings, but the right to a fair trial is fundamental under domestic law and does NOT depend on the categorisation of the rights or interests at stake in the proceedings as “ civil rights or obligations “ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.
Read more »

In SUTCLIFFE v SoS for Education ( 2024 ) EWHC 1878 ( Admin ) the Court observes that Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the freedoms of religion and expression, are both qualified rights, subject to the public interest balance test. It was fundamental that teachers should not only educate but should also safeguard the wellbeing of children in their care, and treat them with dignity and respect. Insofar as the Teachers’ Standards qualified a teacher’s Article 9 and 10 rights, such qualifications were proportionate.

In BERG v TOWER HAMLETS LBC (2024) EWFC 92 the Court granted applications by journalists who sought the disclosure of transcripts and orders from deprivation of liberty safeguarding proceedings concerning an individual who had been subject to a deprivation of liberty order as a child, so that they could report on their contents.  It was in the public interest to know that the High Court was making orders restricting the liberty of children and young people and to be provided with the opportunity to understand the difficult decisions the Courts had to make and the competing considerations that had to be balanced when making such decisions. The former child (C) wished to contribute to the programme.

On a reading of Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 and Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 the publication of the text or a summary of the whole or part of the Orders made in respect of C would not of itself be contempt of court, except where a Court having the power to do so had expressly prohibited the publication.  However, the publication of the transcripts of the hearings in respect of C and of the documents utilised at those hearings, or extracts, quotations or summaries of the same, would be a contempt of court unless expressly authorised by the Court.  When considering whether to relax the protection afforded by Section 2, the Court had to balance competing ECHR rights and to consider the proportionality of the potential interference with each right. The Court also had to consider carefully whether the Order sought was proportionate having regard to its aim.  Where Article 10 was engaged and fell to be considered in the balancing exercise, the Human Rights Act 1998 required the Court to have particular regard to the importance of Article 10 and, where the material in question was journalistic in nature, to the extent to which that information was already in the public domain or the extent to which it was, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published.

By reason of C’s agreement to the disclosure and publication of the information sought, the rights engaged did not compete as starkly as in some cases.  However, where the material in issue was rendered confidential by operation of Section 12 of the 1960 Act, where the rights engaged were nonetheless in tension with each other to a degree, and in circumstances where the rights of other respondents to the proceedings were also engaged, it remained the Court’s responsibility to consider carefully the comparative importance of the competing rights and to consider the justification for interfering with or restricting each right.

The ambit of C’s Article 8 right to respect for private life was wide, encompassing the narrow concept of personal freedom from intrusion and her psychological and physical integrity, personal development and the development of social relationships and physical and social identity.  C made plain that she struggled with her mental health and has had difficulties adjusting to life as a young adult and forming relationships.  On the face of it, importance attached to C’s Article 8 right when placed in the balance. However, there were powerful justifications for interfering in those rights and in balancing the competing rights particular regard should be paid to the importance of the Article 10 right.

Here, C’s own Article 10 right was firmly engaged and constituted a powerful justification for interfering with her Article 8 right and the Article 8 rights of others.  That conclusion was reinforced where the BBC was providing psychotherapeutic support to C to safeguard her psychological integrity. Further, were was an important public interest in the public being able to understand and scrutinise the operation of the family courts.  That interest was particularly acute where the family court scrutinised and endorsed, or refused, intervention in family life by the State.  Similarly, there was a particular public interest in the applicants being able to publish information regarding orders restricting the liberty of children and young people, some of which, whilst lawful, were being made outside any statutory regime that had been the subject of democratic consultation and approval by Parliament.  Regarding proportionality, the interference in C’s Article 8 rights and the rights of other respondents was proportionate.  However, prohibiting the publication of the information sought would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 10 rights engaged (paras 30-52).

The appeal in GHAOUI v WALTHAM FOREST LBC (2024) EWCA Civ 405 concerned the role of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, which places duties upon local authorities in relation to homeless people.  Specifically, how should human rights considerations be factored in to the assessment for suitability of accommodation.  The Court of Appeal said, at para 36, that homelessness decisions may raise issues that engage Convention rights, but instances where a decision designed to relieve homelessness will amount to a violation will be rare. The question (para 37) is as to the lawful application of a proper definition of suitability to the circumstances of the case, identifying and weighing up relevant factors.

In SOS for BUSINESS v MERCER ( 2024 ) UKSC 12 the Supreme Court, in relation to Trade Union legislation that fails to provide protection against sanctions short of dismissal penalising participation in lawful strike action, considers Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( the interpretative presumption ) and Section 4 ( declarations of incompatibility ), and partially allows the appeal. Read more »