The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that whereas saving cost is “of course” a legitimate objective of public policy, budgetary considerations “cannot” justify discrimination. In other words, if a benefit is to be limited in order to save costs, it “must” be limited in a way that is neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory and is a proportionate means of fulfilling the legitimate objective: R (Coll) v SoS for Justice (2017) UKSC 40, at paragraphs 40 and 42, per Lady Hale, Deputy President.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We'll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (51)
- Council Tax and Rates (69)
- Decision making and Contracts (243)
- Elections and Bylaws (32)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (112)
- General (16)
- Housing (138)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (100)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (198)
- Land, Goods and Services (68)
- Local Authority Powers (71)
- Non Judicial Control (20)
- Planning and Environmental (128)
- Social Care (66)
- Standards (22)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024