Beware the consequences of ignoring capacity & unwittingly discriminating, says Richard Adkinson
A recent decision by HHJ Pelling QC reminds us that anti-discrimination legislation permeates all aspects of a public authority’s activities, particularly concerning litigation with those who lack capacity or are disabled (see Haworth (a bankrupt) (by the Official Solicitor her litigation friend) v Cartmel and The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWHC 36 (Ch)).
After a permanent injury to her spine, Miss Haworth suffered from severe mental illness and, as a “therapy”, looked after horses. In 2007, HMRC’s request to complete some tax returns went unanswered because Miss Haworth had a phobia of opening her post. HMRC carried out its own assessment and sent a letter threatening to distrain over £180,000 (returns filed after the bankruptcy order actually revealed no tax was due).
Her mother found the correspondence and told HMRC that the horses were kept as a therapeutic hobby, that she never opened post, could not manage her own affairs, and if she had read the distraint letter
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
