• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Published on August 21, 2020 by Kieran Laird, Ravi Randhawa and John Cooper

The ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ proportionality test applies outside the context of welfare benefits – but may make little difference

In R (On the Application Of Drexler) v Leicestershire County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 502 the Appellant sought to challenge changes to the Respondent’s Mainstream Home to School Transport Policy and SEN Policy. Under the previous policies, the Appellant, who is severely disabled, had been provided with local authority organised transport to and from school.

The changes to the Council’s SEN Policy made different levels of provision for students aged 5-16, 16-18 and 19+. For those aged 16-18, including the Appellant, the changes to the SEN Policy removed local authority organised transport and instead provided their families with direct payments to arrange their own travel, save in exceptional circumstances. This was in contrast to the position taken in respect of the other age groups.

The Appellant’s circumstances were not judged to be exceptional and so the Council decided to withdraw the existing transport arrangements and award a personal transport budget. She considered the payments made under that budget to be insufficient to fully fund the costs of arranging transport.

At first instance, the Appellant challenged the SEN Policy on the basis that it was unlawful because it gave rise to discrimination on a number of bases. On appeal, her complaint had been narrowed to discrimination on the basis of age, between children and young persons with SEN aged 16-18 such as the Appellant, and pupils and students with SEN aged 5-16 or 19+. She claimed that such discrimination was contrary to Article 14, read with Article 8 and/or A2P1, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Swift J found that persons in the Appellant’s position were indeed treated less favourably and went on to consider whether there was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment using the proportionality test set out in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39. After the hearing, but before judgment was given, the Supreme Court gave its judgment in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21 in which it stated that, with respect to justification in relation to entitlement to welfare benefits, the test is whether the approach taken by the government is ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. Following written submissions from the parties, Swift J applied that test in the Appellant’s case.

The Appellant appealed on the basis that the judge should not have applied the ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ test outside the context of welfare benefits.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that there was no authority from the Supreme Court to suggest that the test was applicable only in welfare benefits cases, and that there were decisions of the Court of Appeal applying the test outside that context.

In any event, the Court found that, in the context in which a public authority is required to allocate finite resources and to choose priorities when it comes to setting its budget, there is no material difference between application of the conventional proportionality test, giving appropriate weight and respect to the judgment of the executive or legislature, and the ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ test.

The correct test had therefore been applied at first instance and the appeal was dismissed.

Filed Under: Public Law & Regulation

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Environmental law in 2023 – Key areas to follow
  • AI and copyright in 2022
  • A legal update on the UK’s ban on single-use plastics

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (51) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) Blockchain (4) brand protection (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (12) COP26 (11) COP27 (5) Copyright (7) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) GowlingAtTheGames (5) Intellectual Property (56) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (39) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (10) Pensions dashboards (6) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (30) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (16) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (42) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (12) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT