Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities (Supreme Court)

In brief

The Supreme Court confirmed that the four-stage proportionality test from Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39 applies to equality law assessments in services and housing contexts. A county court dealing with a possession claim by a housing association against a disabled tenant must conduct a full proportionality analysis when the tenant raises EA 2010 defences. The four stages are: (i) does the objective correspond to a sufficiently important aim? (ii) is the measure rationally connected to the aim? (iii) is a less rights-restrictive measure available? (iv) does the measure strike a fair balance between individual and community rights? The judgment rejects summary disposal of equality defences in possession proceedings.

Key provisions

• main-ratio — Bank Mellat proportionality applies to EA 2010 in services and housing: Lord Neuberger's main ratio: the four-stage Bank Mellat proportionality test applies to EA 2010 equality assessments in services and housing contexts. County courts dealing with possession claims must conduct a full proportionality analysis when EA 2010 defences are raised; summary disposal of equality defences in possession proceedings is rejected.

When relevant

Cite when: (a) services-side discrimination is at issue and a four-stage proportionality analysis is required; (b) housing or other services context where an equality defence is raised and summary disposal is being sought; (c) need to invoke Bank Mellat proportionality structure outside the pure public-law context; (d) Sch.3 services-side proportionality is being analysed (especially as anchor for the SPA-2026 proportionality framework at paras 13.113-13.151).