Jodie Taylor for Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, who has hydrocephalus and spina bifida and is a wheelchair user disabled under the Equality Act 2010, sought judicial review of a decision by the Defendant local authority concerning an assessment of her community care needs under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The Plaintiff had previously received a care package of 61 hours per week from her former local authority, Company A. Upon moving to the Defendant's jurisdiction, Company B conducted a new assessment and proposed a support plan providing fewer hours of care than previously received. The Plaintiff complained about the reduction and challenged the lawfulness of the Defendant's decision, contending that it breached statutory duties and equality obligations. The Defendant maintained that their assessment met all assessed needs and that the reduction was not unlawful.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant's decision to provide a lower number of community care service hours than previously provided was lawful under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
2. Whether reliance on funding from a third party, the Independent Living Fund (ILF), to meet part of the Plaintiff's assessed care needs was lawful or constituted an ultra vires act.
3. Whether the Defendant's decision was irrational in failing to consider the Plaintiff's increased needs following medical procedures.
4. Whether the Defendant breached the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to have due regard to the needs and disadvantages of persons with protected characteristics.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant unlawfully "reduced" the hours of non-residential social care below that assessed as required, breaching the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
• The Defendant acted ultra vires by relying on the Independent Living Fund, a third party, to provide part of the care, contrary to a published policy stating ILF funds are not designed to meet statutory assessed needs.
• The Defendant failed to revise the care assessment to reflect increased needs following medical procedures in February 2024, rendering the decision irrational.
• The Defendant breached the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to properly consider and address disadvantages and needs related to the Plaintiff's protected characteristic of disability.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Plaintiff misconstrued the support plan; the Defendant assessed care needs at 48.5 hours per week and proposed 54.5 hours including optional additional support from the ILF.
• The ILF funding was an augmentation and not a substitute for the Defendant's statutory duty; the Defendant would provide the full 48.5 hours independently if the Plaintiff did not seek ILF support.
• The Defendant's assessment and support plan complied with statutory duties and equality obligations; there was no unlawful reduction or irrationality.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R. (on the application of Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345	Clarification of the public sector equality duty requiring substantive, rigorous, and open-minded consideration, not mere box-ticking.	The Court referenced this precedent to emphasize the need for the Defendant to exercise the equality duty with rigour and in substance, noting that the assessment complied with this standard.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the Defendant's care assessment and support plan in detail, focusing on the distinction between the total hours proposed and the statutory obligation. It found that the Defendant's baseline provision of 48.5 hours per week met the Plaintiff's assessed needs for substantial and critical risk categories. The higher figure of 54.5 hours included additional social support funded optionally through the Independent Living Fund, which was not a statutory requirement. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's contention that reliance on the ILF was unlawful or ultra vires, as the Defendant was prepared to meet all assessed needs independently if the Plaintiff did not pursue ILF funding.

Regarding the alleged failure to update the assessment post-medical procedures, the Court found no irrationality because the Defendant had a logical basis for concluding the Plaintiff's needs had not increased. On the equality duty challenge, the Court held that the Defendant had properly considered the obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and had exercised the duty with appropriate rigour and substance, consistent with the cited precedent.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the remedies sought by the Plaintiff.

The decision confirms that a local authority’s assessment and provision of community care services must be based on its own lawful assessment of needs, and that reliance on third-party funding for additional support beyond statutory requirements does not constitute an unlawful reduction or ultra vires act. The ruling underscores the importance of rigorous compliance with the public sector equality duty but establishes that a lawful assessment meeting assessed needs will satisfy this duty. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies the existing legal framework to the facts presented.