R (Buckley) v Sheffield City Council

This is a judicial review challenge to Sheffield City Council's adoption of a Council Tax Reduction Scheme. The claimants alleged (1) that the consultation was unlawful because consultees were not given sufficient information to allow an informed response, and (2) breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to have due regard to the impact on persons with protected characteristics such as children and disabled people.

The court held that the consultation challenge failed. The court applied the principles in Coughlan governing consultation and followed the Court of Appeal decision in R (Stirling) v London Borough of Haringey, concluding that the council was required to publish and consult on its draft scheme and was not obliged to consult on the Government's transitional grant scheme or to set out in detail all other possible financial options. The equality challenge under section 149 also failed: the council had considered its duty, prepared an Equality Impact Assessment, adopted mitigation measures including a hardship fund and an action plan, and had thereby had "due regard" to protected groups.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted but, on the merits, the claim was dismissed.

Background and parties: The claimants challenged the decision of Sheffield City Council on 23 January 2013 to adopt a Council Tax Reduction Scheme which required many working-age recipients who previously received 100% council tax benefit to pay 23% of their council tax liability. The national benefit scheme was being localised under legislation which required each billing authority to make a local scheme. Pensioners were protected by regulation; working-age claimants were affected by reduced funding from central government.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimants sought judicial review of the council's decision on two grounds: (i) that the consultation process was unlawful because it failed to give sufficient information and did not mention relevant options including the Government's transitional grant scheme; and (ii) that the council failed to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by not having due regard to impacts on those with protected characteristics, in particular children and disabled people.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the consultation was adequate under the common law test (Coughlan): in particular whether the council should have presented rejected options or the existence and details of the Government's transitional grant as part of the consultation.
• Whether the council had had "due regard" under s.149 to the needs of persons with protected characteristics when making its scheme, including whether the Equality Impact Assessment and proposed mitigation (notably a hardship fund and monitoring/action plan) were sufficient.

Reasoning and conclusions:

• On consultation, the court applied the Coughlan principles and relied on the Court of Appeal decision in R (Stirling) v LB Haringey. The council was required to publish and consult on a draft scheme and to consult those likely to have an interest. The consultation documents had identified the funding shortfall and explained the draft scheme; consultees were free to respond that the council should fund the shortfall or vary the scheme. The court agreed with Haringey that the council was not obliged to consult on the Government's transitional grant scheme and was not required to set out in detail every other option rejected where those options were not realistic in the council's factual context.
• On equality duty, the court emphasised that due regard is a substantive test, not a tick-box exercise. Having reviewed the consultation documents, the Equality Impact Assessment, action plan and cabinet/full council materials, the court concluded the council had considered the impact on protected groups, assessed impacts (age assessed as high; disability medium; other impacts noted), proposed mitigations (a hardship fund, communications strategy, monitoring and review) and intended to monitor and target assistance. The court rejected the submission that the council was required to identify precisely the number of children or disabled persons affected, or to undertake forensic analysis of individual circumstances.

Outcome: Permission to apply for judicial review was granted but the challenges failed on the merits and the claim was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but rejected both grounds. The consultation challenge was unsuccessful because the council had published and consulted on a draft scheme in accordance with the statutory scheme and the Court of Appeal decision in R (Stirling) v LB Haringey bound this court; the council was not required to consult on the Government's transitional grant or to set out every rejected option. The equality challenge under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 also failed because the council had had due regard to the impact on persons with protected characteristics, as shown by its consultation materials, Equality Impact Assessment, action plan and proposed hardship fund and monitoring arrangements.