The first case to consider the application of the functional public authority definition in detail was Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595. The question for the court was whether a housing association, which had taken over a local housing authority's housing stock and was providing rental accommodation on behalf of the authority (a core public authority), was performing a public function. The Court of Appeal seemed to reject a functional approach to the application of the HRA 1998, s 6(3) and set down the general principle:

'The fact that a body is performing an activity which otherwise a public body would be under a duty to perform cannot mean that such performance is necessarily a public function. A public body, in order to perform its public duties, can use the services of a private body.'

The Court of Appeal went on to consider what factors would be relevant in identifying whether a body was performing a public function and mentioned the following:
(a) The fact that a body is a charity or is not motivated by profit does not necessarily mean that it performs a public function.
(b) Statutory authority for what is being done can help to establish the act as being public.
(c) The extent of control over the function exercised by a core public body.
(d) Proximity of relationship between the private body and the delegating authority. In Poplar the last two factors were decisive. On the facts, the court found that the Housing Association was so 'enmeshed' in the activities of the local authority that it was a functional public authority.