R (Logan) v Havering LBC

The court considered the lawfulness of Havering's 2015 council tax reduction scheme, the adequacy of the attached Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and whether the full Council had had "due regard" to its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court held that claims of unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR taken with Article 1 of Protocol 1 and under the Equality Act failed. The EIA itself was not defective. However, there was insufficient evidence that all members of the full Council had actually had due regard to the EIA when adopting the revised scheme, so the decision-making procedure was flawed. Despite that procedural failing, the court declined to grant further relief because it was not just and convenient to do so in the circumstances.

The claimant, a severely disabled man of working age, challenged the London Borough of Havering’s adoption of a council tax reduction scheme that replaced a previous 100% reduction by an 85% reduction for many working-age claimants. The claimant sought, in the course of judicial review, declarations and initially a quashing order that the scheme was unlawful on grounds of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1 and the Equality Act) and failure to comply with the public sector equality duty (PSED) under section 149 Equality Act 2010. After permission was granted on limited grounds, the hearing addressed three principal issues:

• Substantive discrimination: whether the 85% scheme unlawfully discriminated against disabled persons (and those of working age) compared with pensioners who remained entitled to 100% support by statute;
• Adequacy of the EIA: whether the Equality Impact Assessment attached to the officers' report was defective;
• Compliance with the PSED: whether the full Council had had due regard to the EIA and thus discharged its duty under s.149 EA 2010 when adopting the scheme.

The court reasoned that the scheme was an overtly neutral, working-age scheme and that Parliament had preserved pensioners outside the discretionary scheme; that relevant adjustments for disabled claimants (income disregards and premiums and a discretionary hardship fund) meant the scheme did not amount to unlawful direct or indirect discrimination; and that a discretionary top-up fund was a legitimate and significant part of the overall scheme which could mitigate disparate impact. The EIA was adequate on its face. However, applying the authorities on PSED, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence that all members who took the decision had conscientiously read and had due regard to the EIA. The court nevertheless declined to grant a quashing order or other formal relief, concluding that a declaratory or other remedy was not just and convenient in the circumstances (including delay, lack of personal prejudice in the current year and the prospect of a new scheme), although the procedural defect was identified to guide future decision-making.

First instance: The court held that the claimant's discrimination claims under Article 14/A1P1 and the Equality Act failed and the EIA was not defective. However, there was insufficient evidence that the full Council had had due regard to the public sector equality duty in adopting the scheme. Despite that procedural failing the court declined to grant formal relief (no quashing or mandatory relief) as it was not just and convenient to do so given delay, the claimant's lack of present prejudice and wider public interest considerations.