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

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

According to the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018, all recent refugees arriving in the UK seeking asylum are to be kept detained until their claims are processed and it can be ascertained that they do not pose a terrorist threat. The local detention centres are run by a private firm, ‘Home Away from Home.’ Estela, a recently arrived asylum seeker has been detained in one of the privately run facilities, and has had her room searched regularly by ‘Home Away from Home’ private security guards in case she has any contraband in her possession. As she has to wait outside while they are searching her room, Estela fears that the security guards may go through her private correspondence whilst searching. Advise Estela on any claims she may make on the grounds of the HRA 1998, including reference to any procedural requirements. [Note: This is a hypothetical scenario and the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018 is not real legislation.]