Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


YL v Birmingham City Council

[2007] UKHL 27

Case summary last updated at 07/01/2020 15:42 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case YL v Birmingham City Council

 C (84) suffered from Alzheimer’s. D council had a statutory duty to make arrangements providing her with residential accommodation & it chose to fulfil that duty (as it was allowed) by contracting with 2nd D company to place her in one of its care homes, which accommodated both privately funded residents & those whose fees were paid by D in full or part. C’s fees were paid by the council, save for a small top-up fee paid by her relatives. 2nd D company sought to terminate the contract for her care & remove her from the home. C argued that the company fell within s.6(2)(b) HRA & its actions were in breach of 2, 3, 8 of ECHR. Majority of HL rejected this claim à distinguished between the function of LA in making its statutory arrangements for those who couldn’t make arrangements for themselves & that of a private company in providing such care under contract on a commercial basis rather than by subsidy from public funds. Held that the actual provision of care & accommodation by the private company (as opposed to its regulation & supervision pursuant to statutory rules) was not inherently a public function \ fell outside of 6(3)(b). Thus while C had retained public law rights against the LA that arranged the accommodation, she didn’t have Convention rights against the care home. But powerful dissent by Lord Bingham & Baroness Hale. The statutory legislation allowed the LA to discharge its duty by arranging care itself or doing so via a secondary organisation: ‘alternative means by which the responsibility of the state may be discharged.’Rejected the distinction made by the majority between arranging for & providing accommodation à intent of P was that care should be provided à important that the duty WAS performed, not HOW it was performed. Bingham: ‘when the 1998 Act was passed, it was very well known that a number of functions formerly carried out by private bodies. S.6(3)(b was clearly drafted with this well-known fact in mind.’ He also says that those in care are the most vulnerable and therefore have a greater need for protection. Clearly the provision of care is a public function. Lord Neberger said that Lord Neuberger: core public authorities are bound by s.6 in relation to ‘every one of its acts whatever the nature of the act concerned.’ 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Administrative Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Administrative Law Notes

Administrative Law Notes >>