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

The claimant sought judicial review of Leicester City Council's executive decision of 15 October 2013 to withdraw the provision of directly-run residential home care (the "October Decision") and, in particular, the first phase closure of Herrick Lodge where the claimant had lived since 1999.

The court considered three principal public law challenges: (1) that the council failed properly to inform itself on material factual issues (the Tameside duty); (2) that the council breached the Public Sector Equality Duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010; and (3) that the council failed to take into account relevant considerations including prospective Article 8 ECHR effects, an alleged legitimate expectation of a "home for life", and the claimant's future care needs.

The judge held that the claim was brought promptly, that the council had taken reasonable steps and relied on material (including Laing & Buisson analysis and local inquiries) such that there was no Wednesbury/Tameside breach, and that the decision‑maker had given "due regard" under s.149 EA (focussing on cultural, dietary, linguistic and religious needs and on availability of Asian lifestyle and ExtraCare alternatives). The court also rejected challenges based on Article 8, legitimate expectation and failure to assess care needs as either premature or without requisite legal foundation.

The claimant, a 101 year old long-term resident of Herrick Lodge, sought to quash the council's October 2013 executive decision to close several council-run care homes (Phase One included Herrick Lodge). The claimant alleged: (i) the council proceeded on erroneous factual assumptions about current and future demand for residential care (Tameside duty); (ii) the council failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic of race (British Asian/Asian residents); and (iii) the council failed to take into account relevant considerations including potential Article 8 ECHR effects, a legitimate expectation of life-long residence, and the claimant's future care needs.

Relief sought: quashing of the October Decision and associated relief.

Procedural posture: first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court (rolled-up hearing of permission and substantive hearing). The claim form was issued within the three month period and the court found the claim was brought promptly.

Issues framed by the court:

• Issue 1: Whether the council failed to inform itself adequately on material facts (demand and nature of demand for residential care) before taking the October Decision (Tameside principles).
• Issue 2: Whether the council breached the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EA) including the duties to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
• Issue 3: Whether the council failed to take into account relevant considerations: (a) foreseeable Article 8 impact; (b) the claimant's asserted legitimate expectation of a home for life; and (c) assessment of the claimant's future care needs and availability of suitable alternatives.

Court's reasoning (concise): The court reiterated that judicial review is concerned with lawfulness, not a merits appeal. On Issue 1 the council had relied on reasonable forecasting material (Laing & Buisson as presented in a BUPA report), local inquiries and officer evidence; the court found no Tameside error and accepted the council’s reasons for not relying on POPPI figures or isolated press-release year-to-year changes. On Issue 2 the decision-maker (Councillor Patel) had direct personal engagement, had considered equality issues, had reviewed Equality Impact Assessments and undertaken enquiries about culturally appropriate alternatives (Asian lifestyle homes and ExtraCare), and had given specific assurances about transition planning; the PSED requires "due regard" not a guarantee of a particular outcome and the judge concluded the duty had been discharged in substance. On Issue 3 the court found (a) Article 8 considerations (private and family life) had been addressed substantively in the council's planning and assurances and any claim of infringement was premature until an actual relocation decision is made; (b) there was no clear, unambiguous representation amounting to a substantive legitimate expectation of a lifetime tenancy, and in any event any expectation could be overridden by the public interest (costs, declining demand, fiduciary duties to taxpayers); and (c) the council had considered the claimant's care needs and provided a staged moving plan and undertaking not to move residents until suitable provision was found; an advance individual needs assessment prior to closure was unnecessary absent exceptional circumstances.

Disposition: permission was granted but the substantive judicial review claim was refused.

The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but refused the substantive application. The judge found no Tameside error in the council's factual inquiries or forecasting; concluded the decision-maker had given "due regard" to the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) by focussing on cultural, dietary, linguistic and religious needs and by investigating Asian Lifestyle and ExtraCare alternatives; and rejected arguments based on Article 8, substantive legitimate expectation and failure to assess care needs as either premature or legally unmade. The decision was therefore lawful and not susceptible to quashing.