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

Indirect discrimination requires a genuine provision, criterion or practice capable of applying to a comparison group and producing a particular disadvantage for the protected group. Statistical evidence must compare relevant groups and show an adverse differential effect. A higher proportion of women in unsuitable accommodation, without evidence that the alleged practice caused that disparity, is insufficient. A database recording housing needs does not itself cause a breach of the homelessness duty or amount to the relevant disadvantage. Where disparate impact is not established, justification does not arise. The public sector equality duty requires substantive due regard to equality considerations, not achievement of a particular result, and was met on the facts.

The appellant was owed the respondent’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. She occupied a studio with her child, and the respondent recorded a transfer request on a database. After an error led her to forego a suitability review, the respondent accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable from 16 June 2023 and provided suitable accommodation from August 2023. The High Court dismissed claims for indirect discrimination and breach of the public sector equality duty: [2024] EWHC 2279 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether the transfer-list system was a PCP, whether it placed women at a particular disadvantage compared with men, whether it was justified, and whether section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 had been breached.

Disposition. Lord Justice Lewis gave the judgment of the court. Lord Justices Cobb and Newey agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. PCP. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 must be read as a whole. A PCP must be capable of being applied to persons so that disadvantage can be compared between groups. The concept is broad, but does not encompass every individual act of unfair treatment. The maintenance of a database, viewed alone, was unlikely to be a PCP because it did not itself differentiate between groups. The court nevertheless assumed, for the purposes of the appeal, that the composite practice of operating the database while leaving some applicants in unsuitable accommodation was a PCP.
2. Particular disadvantage. The statistical material did not establish that women, or women with children, were placed at a particular disadvantage compared with men. Although the proportion of female single-parent households increased between the wider temporary-accommodation group and the unsuitable-accommodation group, the corresponding male proportion also increased and the proportions remained broadly constant. There was no other evidence establishing disparate impact.
3. Causation. The section 193(2) duty under the Housing Act 1996 arose independently of database entry. The database recorded information and was intended to assist the authority in securing accommodation. It did not cause the applicant to remain in unsuitable accommodation. The asserted disadvantage arose from the shortage of suitable accommodation, not from inclusion on the database. No causal link was shown.
4. Justification. Since particular disadvantage and disparate impact had not been established, the question whether the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim did not arise.
5. Public sector equality duty. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a substantive duty to have due regard to specified equality matters, rather than a duty to achieve a particular result. The authority had regard to the appellant’s circumstances by recording her needs and seeking suitable accommodation. There was therefore no breach. The court also rejected the section 136 argument for want of an evidential foundation. It noted that the section 149 issue was academic and fact-specific, and could have been declined under R (AY) v Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, but dismissed Ground 6 after addressing it.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the dismissal of the indirect discrimination and public sector equality duty claims: [2025] EWCA Civ 1049.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The deputy judge dismissed the claims: [2024] EWHC 2279 (Admin).