Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1334
The point in plain English: A failure to comply properly with the public sector equality duty does not automatically mean that the underlying decision must be quashed or set aside. The court must still consider the consequences of the breach and whether compliance would realistically have produced a substantially different outcome.
What happened
This was a social-housing possession case, not a planning case. The landlord accepted that it had failed to comply properly with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 before seeking possession from a disabled tenant.
The issue for the Court of Appeal was what legal consequence should follow from that admitted PSED breach.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court rejected a rigid rule that every PSED breach automatically invalidates the decision. Public-law remedies remain discretionary. Where, on the particular facts, it is highly likely that proper compliance would not have produced a substantially different outcome, relief may be refused.
The tenant’s appeal was dismissed.
Why Forward appears in a planning case-law library
Forward does not decide planning law. Its relevance is the general public-law principle governing the consequences of a PSED failure. That can matter in planning and enforcement litigation where section 149 is engaged, but the planning decision must still be analysed in its own factual and statutory context.
Planning Geek discusses equality and proportionality issues in our guide to human rights and planning enforcement.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.