Introduction

McCue v Glasgow City Council is a landmark case adjudicated by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in 2023. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Equality Act 2010 in the context of community care services provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The appellant, Mrs. Terri McCue, acted as guardian for her son, Andrew McCue, who is disabled with Down’s Syndrome. The central issue concerns whether the Council appropriately deducted disability-related expenditures from Andrew's income when assessing the charges for community care services.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, upholding the Council’s decision to limit deductions for disability-related expenditures to specific items (£6.25 and £2.50 per week). The Court clarified that while the Council must consider disability-related expenditures, it is not obliged to account for all additional costs unless they demonstrably reduce the individual's available means to pay the charges. The Court concluded that the Council’s approach did not constitute unlawful discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, as it provided reasonable adjustments without imposing undue financial burdens.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several key cases influenced the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

• Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015]: Established that the absence of a non-disabled comparator does not preclude a finding of unfavorable treatment under the Equality Act.
• Swansea University Trustees v Williams [2018]: Affirmed that enhancements to benefits for disabled persons do not inherently constitute unfavorable treatment unless they impose burdens beyond equitable adjustments.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Sales, delivering the judgment, emphasized the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The Council’s policy was assessed to ensure it did not place disabled individuals at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. The Court scrutinized whether the Council’s deductions for disability-related expenditures were reasonable and aligned with the statutory obligations under both the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Equality Act 2010.

The Court clarified that "Disability Related Expenditure" (DRE) is not a statutory term but a practical consideration within the Council’s assessment process. The Council’s approach to deducting specific DRE amounts was deemed a reasonable adjustment, ensuring that disabled individuals are not disproportionately burdened financially.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for local authorities to make careful, case-by-case assessments of disability-related expenditures when determining charges for community care services. It establishes that while reasonable adjustments must be made, there is no obligation to account for every possible additional cost unless it directly impacts the practicability of the charges. This decision provides clarity on the limits of adjustments under the Equality Act, balancing fairness with the practicalities of public service funding.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Disability Related Expenditure (DRE)

DRE refers to additional costs incurred by a disabled individual as a direct result of their disability. These can include expenses like specialized clothing, transportation to medical appointments, or extra heating costs necessary for health reasons.

Sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010

Section 15 deals with direct discrimination, stating that a person is discriminated against if they are treated unfavorably due to their disability unless the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Section 20 imposes a duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments to avoid placing disabled individuals at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people.

Section 87 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

This section empowers local authorities to charge individuals for community care services, provided the charges are reasonable. It also stipulates that if an individual's means are insufficient to make such payments practicable, the authority must adjust the charges accordingly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in McCue v Glasgow City Council underscores the delicate balance between providing equitable support for disabled individuals and managing public resources effectively. By clarifying the scope of reasonable adjustments and the treatment of disability-related expenditures, the Court has provided a clear framework for future cases. This landmark judgment ensures that while disabled persons receive necessary financial consideration, it does not impose unmanageable burdens on public service providers.