Blake & Ors v London Borough of Waltham Forest

The claim concerned judicial review of the Council's decision of 17 April 2013 to terminate a licence permitting a long‑standing soup kitchen to operate from Mission Grove car park. The only ground on which permission to proceed was granted was alleged failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The court held that the decision‑maker had identified the potentially affected vulnerable group (homeless service users, including older and disabled people and some from eastern European communities) but failed to carry out an evidence‑based, contemporaneous appraisal of the most likely and most serious adverse impact of revocation — namely that the soup kitchen would close if the proposer alternative site was not taken up. The Equality Analysis did not identify or assess the risk of closure nor address mitigation directed at that risk, instead focusing on a less serious relocation impact and relying on assumptions about public transport access.

Because the PSED requires rigorous, structured, and open‑minded consideration of equality implications, the court concluded that the duty had not been discharged. The decision to revoke the licence was declared unlawful and quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration with proper regard to the PSED.

Background and parties:

• The Third Claimant, Christian Kitchen, is a charity that for over 20 years operated a volunteer‑run soup kitchen at Mission Grove car park serving vulnerable and homeless people (including the First and Second Claimants).
• The Defendant, London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council), decided to terminate the licence for Mission Grove on grounds including associated antisocial behaviour and offered an alternative lay‑by at Crooked Billet on Walthamstow Avenue. Christian Kitchen declined that site on safety and accessibility grounds and said relocation would in effect close the service.

(i) Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The claimants sought judicial review of the Council's decision of 17 April 2013. Permission was limited to a PSED challenge under section 149 Equality Act 2010. The claimants sought a declaration of unlawfulness and quashing of the decision.

(ii) Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Council complied with the PSED when revoking the licence — in particular whether it properly identified, assessed and weighed the equality impacts, including the realistic prospect that the soup kitchen would close if the alternative site was not acceptable.
• Whether the contemporaneous Equality Analysis and Report demonstrated an evidence‑based and frank appraisal of likely adverse impacts and appropriate mitigation.
• Procedural issues included the admissibility of an expert report on the alternative site (permission to rely on it was given but it was not necessary to rely on it in the decision).

(iii) Reasoning and conclusions:

• The court set out the legal principles governing the PSED (section 149 and the established case law emphasising that due regard is substantive, requires rigour, and can require inquiries and evidence gathering).
• Although the Council identified the relevant protected groups and proposed mitigation in the form of an alternative site and signposting, the Equality Analysis failed to identify or analyse the substantial and obvious risk that Christian Kitchen would not move and that the soup kitchen would close. That risk was not assessed or weighed, and mitigation directed to preventing closure was not considered contemporaneously.
• The Equality Analysis contained internal inconsistencies and relied on unsubstantiated assumptions (notably that users could reach the new location by bus), and it did not reflect the trustees' clear contemporaneous objections to relocation. The decision‑maker therefore could not be said to have had due regard to the PSED.
• Accordingly, the court concluded the PSED had not been complied with, declared the revocation unlawful and quashed the decision, remitting the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the PSED.

The court granted a declaration and quashed the decision to allow a fresh decision‑making process, carried out with proper and evidenced regard to equality impacts.

The claim succeeded. The court held that the Council failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149, Equality Act 2010) because the contemporaneous Equality Analysis did not identify or assess the realistic risk that the soup kitchen would close if the alternative site was rejected and did not address mitigation for that risk. The decision to revoke the Mission Grove licence was declared unlawful and was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.