Five disabled people have won their court of appeal bid to overturn the government`s decision to abolish the independent living fund (ILF).

The ILF provides support enabling nearly 20,000 severely disabled people to live independent lives in the community.

The appeal by the five was against a high court ruling by Mr Justice Blake in April that the closure decision was lawful.

The five argued that the high court was wrong and there was a lack of proper consultation before the closure decision was taken on 18 December 2012.

Appeal judges Lord Justice Elias, Lord Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice McCombe allowed the challenge and quashed the 18 December decision.

McCombe said the evidence upon which the decision was based did not give "an adequate flavour of the responses received indicating that independent living might well be put seriously in peril for a large number of people".

Welcoming the "powerful" ruling, law firms Deighton Pierce-Glynn and Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, which represented the claimants, said their clients had "feared that the loss of their ILF support would threaten their right to live with dignity, and that they could be forced into residential care or lose their ability to work and participate in everyday activities on an equal footing with other people".

The court of appeal decision was described as being "of major importance not just for the claimants, but for all disabled people".

In a statement, the law firms said: "It remains to be seen whether the government will seek to revisit the idea of closing the fund. However, it confirmed in the course of the proceedings that any preparatory steps were at an early stage and could be reversed if necessary.

"Any fresh decision would require the government to go back to the drawing board and to take into account the wealth of concerns raised by disabled people and by local authorities about the proposal to close the fund.

"Any new decision must be taken with proper attention to the government`s legal obligations to take account of the impact on disabled people and to consider alternatives that would avoid that impact."

Jenny Hurst, 41, a service user from Greenwich, south-east London, who waited in the rain in her wheelchair outside the Royal Courts of Justice, said after being told the outcome of the appeal: "I am absolutely delighted. I was sick with worry waiting for the result and now it is a huge relief to have got over this first hurdle. There is more to go but we have got over this first hurdle, which is fantastic."

The ruling was a victory for five fund users, including Gabriel Pepper, from Walthamstow, east London. He accused the government of imposing "appalling cuts" that were "a vicious attack on the disabled".

The other applicants are Stuart Bracking, Paris L`amour, Anne Pridmore and John Aspinall, who brought his case with his mother, Evonne Taylforth, acting as his litigation friend.

They are among fund-users who receive money from the £359m ILF. The average payout is £300 a week per recipient.

The money enables them to employ personal assistants to help them with their personal needs and, they say, to "go out and have a full life".

The appeal judges unanimously found the government breached its public sector equality duty to properly assess the effect of the fund`s closure on the disabled, as required under the Equality Act 2010.

law@guardian