Facts: AM, who was severely disabled, obtained a place at university. He sought a fully adapted toilet facility including a hoist. That provision would have been expensive and Birmingham decided that because AM was continent, it was unlikely that he would need to use such a facility during the day. Accordingly, Birmingham resolved to provide only a certain amount of additional personal care. AM sought a judicial review but was granted permission only to argue that Birmingham had failed to discharge its duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Judgment: Cranston J dismissed the application, holding that in substance the community care assessment process had resulted in Birmingham having due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in education and the other obligations owed to disabled persons.