YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] 3 W.L.R. 112

Facts:

  • The appellant (Y) appealed against a decision that a private care home was not performing the functions of a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) when providing her with care and accommodation.
  • Y was a resident of a care home run by a healthcare company (S). Her placement had been arranged by the respondent local authority pursuant to its duties under the National Assistance Act 1948 s.21.
  • The local authority funded the placement in large part, a top-up fee being paid by Y’s family and a nursing-care element being funded by the NHS.
  • Following allegations about the conduct of Y’s family during visits, S had proposed to transfer Y to a different home. In response she had invoked s.6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act and the ECHR 1950 Art.8.

Issue:
  • Whether a care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is performing “functions of a public nature” and is thus in that respect a “public authority”?

Ratio:
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • S was not exercising functions of a public nature within the meaning of s6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act.
  • The state could in some circumstances remain responsible for the conduct of a private law body to which it had delegated state powers, but the mere possession of special powers conferred by Parliament did not of itself mean that a body had functions of a public nature; equally, there could be bodies without special statutory powers amenable to judicial review.
  • The actual provision, as opposed to the arrangement, of care and accommodation for those unable to arrange it themselves was not an inherently governmental function.
  • In providing care and accommodation, S acted as a private, profit-making company, and that motivation pointed against treating it as a body with functions of a public nature.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more

Summarise and discuss Lord Bingham’s eight ‘sub-rules’ of the Rule of Law.

Lord Bingham based his view about the rule of law on three key assumptions: Everyone should be equally bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law. Laws must be publicly and prospectively published. Laws should be publicly administered in the courts. The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable. Bingham’s rule of law suggests that it cannot exist without democracy. The rule of law is a kind of implicit contract between the state and the individual.
Read more

3. ‘The defence of ‘Honest Opinion’ under s.3 of The Defamation Act 2013 is not robust enough to protect free speech and rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’ Discuss.

Introduction: There is a narrow line between freedom of expression and the right of one’s reputation. To make this line more clear, the Defamation Act 2013 was created. One of the defences was one of ‘Honest Opinion’ which provided that a statement of opinion, based on facts, was one that could be held by an honest person. The connection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was that Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression and information, and the UK courts were then given the task of finding the balance between the two in relation to defamation cases. Although the Defamation Act 2013 has been found to encourage freedom of expression, it does not protect free speech and rights to the same extent that the ECHR does. P1: The aim of the Defamation Act is to provide better protection for free speech. The main legal case that underlies the honest opinion defence in this Act was Joseph v Spiller [2010]. The defendants, a management agency, had publis...
Read more