Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff took residence at a property in The City under an assured shorthold tenancy which converted to a periodic tenancy after one year. The Defendant is the landlord. The Plaintiff exhibited aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards the Defendant's staff and a neighbour, leading the Defendant to apply for an injunction under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The injunction was granted, but the Plaintiff breached its terms shortly thereafter by making unfounded complaints against the neighbour, causing her distress.
Subsequently, the Defendant initiated committal proceedings for breach of the injunction, resulting in the Plaintiff receiving a suspended prison sentence. Parallel possession proceedings were underway, and the Defendant amended its claim to include a mandatory ground for possession based on the Plaintiff's breach of the injunction. The Plaintiff filed an amended defence alleging mental impairment and unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, supported belatedly by medical evidence revealing a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
The matter proceeded to a hearing before Judge Saggerson, who considered whether the possession claim was genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The Judge found no substantial grounds and made an order for possession, suspended for six weeks due to the Plaintiff's disability. The Plaintiff appealed this order.
Following the hearing, the Defendant conducted a detailed Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) assessment, concluding that enforcement of the possession order was justified despite the Plaintiff's disability. The sole ground of appeal challenged the Judge's rejection of the defence under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant breached its Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in seeking possession.
- Whether any such breach would have been material to the possession proceedings and the making of the possession order.
- Whether the Judge erred in rejecting the Plaintiff's defence under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Powell v Dacorum BC [2019] EWCA Civ 23 |
Clarification that compliance with PSED varies by context; breach can be remedied by later assessment; PSED requires due regard but is not absolute bar to possession. |
Supported the view that late disclosure of disability evidence does not necessarily prevent possession; breach of PSED may be remedied and not fatal if no different outcome would result. |
| Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group [2019] EWHC 24 |
Failure to comply with PSED is not necessarily fatal; court may uphold possession if proper consideration would not have changed outcome. |
Endorsed the principle that inadequate PSED compliance may not invalidate possession where eviction is proportionate and justified. |
| Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton [2011] EWCA Civ 834 |
A breach of disability discrimination duty can be remedied later; possession proceedings need not be dismissed if breach is cured. |
Supported the proposition that breach of duty is not necessarily fatal and can be remedied by later compliance. |
| R (West Berkshire DC) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] 1 WLR 3923 |
Late equality impact assessments can justify decisions; courts reluctant to quash decisions solely due to procedural breaches if outcome unaffected. |
Used to support that late PSED compliance does not mandate quashing a decision if the final assessment satisfies statutory requirements. |
| Bracking v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 |
Explains the abstract nature of the PSED and its application in public sector decisions. |
Guided the court’s understanding of the scope and application of the PSED in possession proceedings. |
| R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 199 (QB) |
Importance of recording and evidencing the discharge of the PSED. |
Emphasized evidential aspects of PSED compliance relevant to the Defendant's procedural conduct. |
| R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin) |
Judicial review standards on PSED compliance and due regard. |
Referenced in relation to the court’s role in reviewing PSED compliance without substituting its own balancing judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully analysed the timing and substance of the Defendant's compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). It found that the Plaintiff's disability was disclosed very late in the proceedings and that the Defendant could only reasonably be expected to engage with the PSED after receipt of the medical evidence. The court emphasised that the PSED requires "due regard" but is not a duty to achieve a particular result, and that the balancing of interests must consider the impact of the Plaintiff's behaviour on others, including the neighbour adversely affected by anti-social conduct.
The court accepted that the Judge below was willing to assume a potential breach of the PSED but concluded that such a breach was not shown on the facts or was, at least, not material. The Defendant had subsequently carried out a detailed and genuine PSED assessment, which confirmed the appropriateness of seeking possession. The court noted the continuing nature of the PSED, allowing for assessments to be made at various stages, including after possession orders are granted but before enforcement.
The court also acknowledged relevant authority that a breach of the PSED does not automatically invalidate possession proceedings if proper compliance would not have led to a different decision. It rejected the Plaintiff's contention that the late service of medical evidence should have mandated procedural delay, reasoning that such a rule could be abused to the detriment of others with legitimate interests.
Overall, the court upheld the view that the Defendant complied with the PSED in substance and timing appropriate to the circumstances, and that the possession order was a proportionate and legitimate response to the Plaintiff's conduct and disability.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court held that the Defendant complied with its Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and that any alleged breach was either unproven or immaterial to the possession proceedings. The possession order made by the lower court was appropriate and proportionate given the Plaintiff’s anti-social behaviour and disability. The decision confirms that late disclosure of disability evidence does not necessarily prevent possession proceedings from proceeding and that the PSED is a continuing duty allowing for assessments at multiple stages. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applies and reinforces existing principles regarding the PSED and possession claims involving disabled tenants.