Buckley & Ors, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council

A consultation is lawful where it occurs at a formative stage, gives sufficient reasons for an intelligent response, allows adequate time, and requires conscientious consideration of responses. Fairness is context-sensitive and does not ordinarily require consultation on every rejected alternative or on measures outside the authority’s proposed scheme.

The public sector equality duty requires substantive consideration of impacts on protected groups. It does not require a formal equality impact assessment or forensic analysis. The duty is to have appropriate regard to equality needs, not to achieve a particular result. Where impacts vary with household circumstances, targeted hardship support may be sufficient mitigation.

The claimants challenged Sheffield City Council’s adoption of a council tax reduction scheme on 23 January 2013. The scheme replaced council tax benefit for working-age residents and required claimants who had previously received full support to pay 23% of their liability.

They alleged unlawful consultation and breach of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning children and disabled people. The consultation issue was governed by the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Stirling) v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWCA Civ 116.

1. Outcome. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the claim was dismissed.
2. Consultation. The requirements identified in R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213 applied. Consultation had to occur while proposals were formative, provide sufficient reasons for an intelligent response, allow sufficient time, and ensure conscientious consideration of responses. Fairness depended on the circumstances. The Council did not have to set out every alternative funding mechanism or explain why each had been rejected. Under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, consultation concerned the draft scheme and its operation, not the transitional grant scheme.
3. Equality duty. Compliance with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was a matter of substance, not form. No formal equality impact assessment was legally required. The duty was to have due regard to the statutory equality goals, with the degree of regard appropriate to the circumstances; it was not a duty to secure a particular outcome.
4. The Council had considered affected protected groups, likely hardship and mitigation. The impact on children could properly be considered through the households in which they lived. Because impacts on children and disabled people were not uniform, the Council was entitled to use a targeted hardship fund rather than blanket support.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records that the Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal in R (Stirling) v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWCA Civ 116 , which bound the court on the consultation issue.