The House was asked whether the grant of special vouchers under the special voucher scheme introduced came within section 29 of the 1975 Act. Acts performed pursuant to a government function did not come within the meaning of service. Discrimination laws did not apply to acts done on behalf of the Crown which were of an entirely different kind from any act that would ever be done by a private person; in this case to the application of immigration controls.
Lord Fraser said: ‘My Lords, I accept that the examples in section 29 (2) are not exhaustive, but they are, in my opinion, useful pointers to aid in the construction of subsection (1). Section 29 as a whole seems to me to apply to the direct provision of facilities or services, and not to the mere grant of permission to use facilities. That is in accordance with the words of subsection (1) and it is reinforced by some of the examples in subsection (2) . . Example (g) seems to me to be contemplating things such as medical services, or library facilities, which can be directly provided by local or other public authorities. So in Savjani, Templeman LJ. took the view that the Inland Revenue performed two separate functions – first a duty of collecting revenue and secondly a service of providing taxpayers with information. ‘
 2 All ER 864,  3 WLR 258,  2 AC 818
England and Wales
Cited – Savjani v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1981
The question arose as whether the Inland Revenue were concerned with the provision of services in their activities relating to the adminsitration of the taxation system, so as to bring them within section 20 of the 1976 Act.
Held: They were . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Kassam CA 1980
Discrimination was alleged against the immigration authorities.
Held: In dealing with people coming in under the immigration rules, the immigration authorities were not providing ‘services’ within the meaning of the Act. The words the . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – Saggar v Ministry of Defence EAT 25-May-2004
Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, . .
Cited – Gichura v Home Office and Another CA 20-May-2008
The claimant sought damages after his treatment as a disabled person whilst held in immigration detention centres. The court dismissed his claim on the basis of Amin.
Held: The application of the Amin case was too simplistic. The various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220680