YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27

Facts

• Y, an individual requiring care, resided in a care home operated by a private healthcare company (S).
• Birmingham City Council (the Council) arranged for Y's placement pursuant to its statutory duties under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
• The Council paid the majority of Y’s care costs, with supplementary payments by Y’s family and funding from the NHS for nursing care.
• Allegations regarding the conduct of Y’s family during visits prompted S to propose relocating Y to a different facility.
• Y challenged this proposal, invoking section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), contending S was exercising functions of a public nature.

Issues

1. Whether a private healthcare company (S), contracted by a local authority to provide care, was performing "functions of a public nature" under section 6(3)(b) of the HRA.
2. Whether the provision of care in these circumstances subjected S to the obligations of the HRA, thereby imposing human rights responsibilities akin to those of public authorities.

Decision

• The House of Lords, by majority, held that S was not exercising functions of a public nature within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the HRA.
• The court emphasized the significance of the entity’s commercial nature and motivation, determining that S remained a private, profit-driven body despite its contractual arrangement with the Council.
• The judgment stated that not all provision of public services by private entities constitutes the exercise of public functions under the HRA.
• The court clarified that receipt of public funding and performance of essential public services do not automatically render a private contractor liable as a public authority for HRA purposes.

Legal Principles

• Section 6 of the HRA requires public authorities to act compatibly with ECHR rights, and extends obligations to bodies performing functions of a public nature.
• The determination of whether an activity is a function of a public nature involves evaluating the context, purpose, and basic nature of the body’s activities.
• The mere delegation of state responsibilities or receipt of public funding does not convert a private entity’s functions into public functions under the HRA.
• Responsibility for compliance with the ECHR remains with the state, but liability does not extend to commercial bodies absent sufficient indicia of a public function.

Conclusion

The House of Lords' decision in YL v Birmingham City Council clarified that private entities providing publicly funded care services under contract are not automatically deemed to perform public functions under the HRA, thereby limiting the Act’s direct application to such providers. This ruling highlighted a significant limitation in the protection of human rights for individuals in privately run care homes and prompted ongoing debate regarding the scope of state responsibility and the definition of public authorities under UK human rights law.