BC, qua the Financial and Welfare Guardian of CC (AP) against West Dunbartonshire Council for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 65 (14 July 2026)

Executive summary

The court heard a judicial review by BC, acting as financial and welfare guardian of CC, challenging West Dunbartonshire Council’s Housing Allocations Policy and the refusal of medical priority points for rehousing. The petition alleged failures under the Public Sector Equality Duty and breaches of sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, but the source text provided does not include the court’s final disposal or remedy.

Key points

• Petitioner: BC, qua financial and welfare guardian of CC; respondent: West Dunbartonshire Council.
• Challenge targeted both the Housing Allocations Policy and the 22 July 2025 appeal refusal of medical points.
• CC was said to have multiple disabilities; the family lived in council housing with damp/mould concerns and limited access due to stored items.
• The policy used a medical points system with awards of 100, 60 or 10 points; an occupational therapist found no need for rehousing on medical grounds.
• The petition relied on Equality Act 2010 grounds: PSED, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• No sanctions, export-control, or national-security issue is identified in the text.

Why it matters

This is primarily a public-law/equality and social housing case, not a sanctions or export-control matter. Its relevance to sovereign risk is indirect only, showing how local authority housing decisions can be judicially tested for compliance with equality duties and disability accommodation obligations.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores the need for housing allocation policies to be explicitly aligned with equality duties and for individual medical-disability decisions to be evidenced and reviewable. On the record provided, it also highlights the importance of documenting access constraints, reasonable adjustment efforts, and the basis for medical-points refusals when defending judicial review.