Karia, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council

A judicial review of a decision to close residential care homes is concerned with legality, not the merits of the service decision. Under the Tameside principle, a public authority must take reasonable steps to inform itself, but the court intervenes only where the inquiries were materially inadequate or irrational. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires due regard to statutory equality objectives. It does not require the decision-maker to achieve equality, eliminate discrimination or investigate every conceivable issue. The decision-maker must personally and conscientiously consider the relevant equality implications, while retaining discretion as to the weight given to them. A future Convention-rights challenge may be premature where the later placement decision has not been made. A claimed substantive legitimate expectation requires a clear and unambiguous representation, and may in any event yield to an overriding public interest.

The claimant was a 101-year-old Gujarati-speaking British Asian resident of Herrick Lodge, a Leicester City Council care home occupied since 1999. The Council decided on 15 October 2013 to close Herrick Lodge and two other homes as part of a wider restructuring of directly provided residential care. Closure was postponed pending the claim.

The claimant challenged the decision on three principal grounds: inadequate inquiry and fundamental factual error; breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and failure to consider relevant matters, including Article 8 rights, an alleged legitimate expectation of a home for life, and future care needs. The Council also argued that the claim had not been brought promptly.

1. Outcome. Permission was granted, but the claim was refused. The application was brought promptly under CPR 54.5(1), despite being issued near the end of the three-month period.
2. Inquiry and factual error. The Council had to take reasonable steps to inform itself about demand, supply and the nature of required provision. It was entitled to determine the manner and intensity of its inquiry, subject to rationality review. The evidence did not show that no reasonable authority could have been satisfied by the inquiries made. Reliance on the Laing & Buisson analysis and rejection of the POPPI figures were rational. The alleged errors concerning future demand did not require determination under the separate mistake-of-fact principles in E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044.
3. Equality duty. The Council complied in substance with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The decision-maker personally considered the cultural, dietary, linguistic and religious needs of the Asian residents, their access to relatives and community facilities, and the availability of suitable alternative placements. The duty was a duty to have due regard, not a duty to achieve a particular outcome. The court could not substitute its view of the weight to be given to equality considerations or micro-manage the inquiry.
4. Other relevant considerations. Article 8 considerations were materially addressed even though the decision-maker did not use the label “Article 8”. Any challenge to the eventual placement was premature because no move had occurred. The placement agreement contained no clear and unambiguous promise of residence for life. Even if a legitimate expectation existed, declining numbers and the cost of the Council provision constituted an overriding interest. The Council had also considered future needs and had promised that no move would occur until suitable alternative provision was identified and transition planning completed.
5. An assessment of needs before closure was not required in the circumstances. The claim therefore failed on every ground.