5.54R (Rajput) v Waltham Forest LBC, R (Tiller) v East Sussex CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1577, (2012) 15 CCLR 147
Where the potential impact of changes to service provision on elderly and disabled individuals was obvious, as was the justification (a budgetary saving) and decision-makers had been advised of their duty under the disability equality duty and the factual background, and plainly understood them, their balancing of risks and benefits discharged their duty under the disability equality duty, notwithstanding any express reference to the legislation
Facts: the local authorities decided to change the level of provision they made in connection with sheltered housing (East Sussex) and day centres (Waltham Forest). Those decisions were challenged on the basis that the local authorities had failed to discharge their duty under section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Carnwath, Rimer and Jackson LJJ) held that the East Sussex decision-maker had been asked to make a decision whether to reduce service provision for elderly and disabled individuals in order to achieve budgetary savings. All the relevant facts were before him and the risks were obvious. His decision that the budgetary savings were justified did, in the circumstances, discharge his duty under the PSED in substance, despite his failure expressly to refer to the duty and to explain how he had discharged it.