header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 July 2013
Issue: 7568 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Official receiver—Status—Whether exercising judicial function

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

R (on the application of Howard) v Official Receiver [2013] EWHC 1839 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 73 (Jul)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (Manchester), Stadlen J, 28 June 2013

A decision by the official receiver revoking a debt relief order is one that is made in the exercise of a judicial function, and is therefore not subject to the public sector equality duty in s 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Ben McCormack (instructed by Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau) for the claimant. Scott Redpath (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.

In May 2011, the claimant applied for and was granted a debt relief order (DRO). The claimant contended that she was a person with severe and long-standing health problems, which rendered her “disabled” for the purposes of s 6 of and Sch 1 to Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). In December 2011, the defendant official receiver decided to revoke the DRO on the ground that the claimant’s declared income would materially exceed the threshold allowed for monthly

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll