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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll