All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The Defendant had considered the views of the young persons affected by a change in the revenue budget before making its decision whether to approve the budget. Further, there was no compelling reason to suggest that the Council members had not considered the Equality Impact Assessments before making their decision, and as such there was no breach of the public sector duty arising from section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
18 July 2012
(1) The Claimant, a 21 year old man who suffers from ADHD and learning difficulties asserted that the Defendant had acted unlawfully in approving its revenue budget for 2012/12 in relation to the provision of Youth Services. At the time proceedings were issued, the Claimant was concerned that the Defendant would close the Youth Centre he attended. The centre remained open, but he still seeks a quashing order in relation to the item of the budget relating to the provision of youth services.
(2) In support of this the Claimant advanced two grounds:
(a) The Defendant failed to comply with section 507B of the Education Act 1996 and the relevant statutory guidance; and
(b) The Defendant failed to comply with its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have regard to public sector equality duties.
(3) The Claimant alleged that because the Defendant exercised functions involving cuts to youth services, it was required to ascertain the views of the young persons affected and ensure these were considered before reaching a decision about the revenue budget.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.
An authoritative source of case reports covering every aspect of immigration, asylum and...