AM, R (on the application of) v The City Council & Anor

A local authority conducting a community care assessment must have due regard to the disability equality duties in section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This requires the decision-maker to engage with the statutory goals, including equality of opportunity and the need to take account of disability, but it does not require a particular outcome. The authority may consider economic and practical factors, including eligibility criteria and the equitable allocation of limited resources. The court will not substitute its own assessment unless the authority acted outside the range of reasonable responses. The duty may be satisfied in substance even if the decision document does not expressly cite the Act, provided the required thought processes are shown to have occurred.

The claimant, who had Duchenne muscular dystrophy and required extensive personal care, sought judicial review of the council’s decision about care and toileting arrangements needed to attend university. The council increased his care provision but refused to provide specialist hoisting equipment and an additional carer for possible daytime toileting, assessing that need as low risk and identifying alternative arrangements. The central issues were whether the decision complied with the disability discrimination duties applicable to public functions and whether the community care assessment had given due regard to equality of opportunity and the claimant’s disability.

1. Section 21B claim. The claim based on discrimination and reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could not succeed. The claimant had received a community care assessment, and the council’s application of its eligibility criteria was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of allocating limited care resources equitably.
2. Due regard duty. Section 49A required the council, when exercising its community care functions, to have due regard to the statutory needs, including promoting equality of opportunity and taking account of disability. The duty required substantive consideration of those matters; it did not impose a duty to achieve a particular result.
3. The assessment showed that the council had considered the claimant’s wish to attend university, recognised that disability deprived him of the same opportunities as non-disabled people, provided additional care and escorted travel, considered the absence of suitable university toileting facilities, and evaluated the likelihood of their use. The council was entitled to take account of reasonable alternative measures and the low level of risk.
4. The court would not second-guess the weight given to economic and practical factors unless the assessment was unreasonable or irrational. An express reference to section 49A in the decision document was good practice, but its absence was not determinative where the required thought processes had occurred. The claim was dismissed. The council agreed to revisit the assessment in light of further evidence.