header-logo header-logo

09 February 2011
Issue: 7452 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cuts cause capital offence

High Court rules London Councils not meeting equality duties

Plans to cut vital grants for more than 400 voluntary sector groups that help London’s poorest and weakest are unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Calvert-Smith ruled that London Councils failed to meet its statutory equality duties when it decided to cut its London Boroughs Grant Scheme by £10m. All the decisions were quashed including decisions to stop funding 213 projects run by 177 different organisations.

Calvert-Smith J ordered London Councils to “undertake a lawful process of reconsideration in accordance with the public sector equality duties”, and that no funding was to be terminated until “three months after the conclusion of the lawful consideration process”.

London Councils must therefore re-run its consultation process, this time with full equality impact assessments.

The case, R (Hajrula and Hamza) v London Councils [2011] EWHC 151, is the first to look at local authority equality duties since the coalition government introduced its cuts package.

London Voluntary Service Council’s chief executive Peter Lewis says the case sets an excellent precedent:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll