Anisa Begum, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The appellant challenged the respondent's use of a transfer-list database and the allocation of temporary accommodation as indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and as a breach of the public sector equality duty in section 149. The court accepted the High Court judge's findings that the mere inclusion of information on a database was not, of itself, a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that differentiated between groups in a way sufficient to establish indirect discrimination. The statistical material adduced did not support an inference that women (including women with children) were placed at a particular disadvantage compared with men or that there was a causal link between the database and remaining in unsuitable accommodation. The court also upheld the judge's conclusion that, even if a PCP had been made out, the respondent had shown proportionality; and there was no breach of the section 149 duty. The appeal was dismissed.

Background and nature of the claim.

The appellant was owed the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. She lived in a small studio flat and, following inquiries, the respondent accepted on 5 October 2022 that it owed the section 193(2) duty. The appellant was included on a respondent-maintained transfer-list database in October 2022. The appellant sought judicial review and interim relief on the basis that she was being provided unsuitable accommodation and that the respondent's system of allocating temporary accommodation, including the transfer list, amounted to indirect discrimination contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and breached the public sector equality duty under section 149. Interim relief was granted, and the appellant accepted suitable accommodation in August 2023; the Part VII claim became academic. The appellant amended to pursue damages for indirect discrimination and to rely on a PCP described as the respondent's system of allocating temporary accommodation including the transfer list.

Procedural posture and parties.

• The High Court (Deputy High Court Judge David Pittaway KC) dismissed the equality claims. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Shelter intervened with written and oral submissions on some grounds.

Issues before the Court of Appeal.

1. Whether the respondent applied a PCP for the purpose of section 19 EA 2010 (whether the transfer-list/database and associated practice of leaving some applicants in unsuitable accommodation amounted to a PCP);
2. Whether any PCP put women (or women with children) at a particular disadvantage compared with men (causation and disparate impact);
3. If discrimination were made out, whether the PCP could be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; and
4. Whether the respondent breached the public sector equality duty in section 149 EA 2010.

Reasoning and disposition.

The court accepted the High Court judge's approach. It held that the mere maintenance of a database to record and organise information was not, without more, a PCP that differentiated between groups in the sense required by section 19. The appellant's statistical evidence, drawn from the respondent's published and internal data for April–June 2023, did not support an inference that women were placed at a particular disadvantage compared with men; the proportions remained broadly constant and the sample sizes and categories did not permit reliable conclusions about disparate impact or causation. The court also found no breach of section 149: the respondent had, in substance, had due regard to equality considerations in exercising its housing functions; and the issue was largely academic because the housing duty had been complied with after August 2023. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court judge's conclusions that (1) the inclusion of information on a transfer-list database was not, by itself, a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) capable of demonstrating indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010; (2) the statistical material did not establish that women (including women with children) were put at a particular disadvantage compared with men or that the database caused remaining in unsuitable accommodation; (3) even if a PCP had been made out, the respondent had shown proportionality; and (4) there was no breach of the public sector equality duty in section 149. The judge's findings were within his evaluative judgment and open to him on the facts.

Appeal from the Administrative Court (Deputy High Court Judge David Pittaway KC), judgment at first instance reported as [2024] EWHC 2279 (Admin). Permission to amend was granted in the High Court (19 December 2023). Interim relief was granted by Mr Richard Clayton KC on 22 August 2023. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal and dismissed on 31 July 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 1049).