R(A) v North Central London Integrated Care Board
[2024] EWHC 2682 (Admin)
A, R (on the application of) v North Central London Integrated Care Board
30 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2881 (Admin)
High Court
A child's healthcare plan was challenged in court. The court made the care board provide a proper plan, but dismissed other parts of the claim. An appeal was not allowed, and the care board has to pay some of the child's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review claim brought by A (a child) against North Central London Integrated Care Board regarding healthcare plan.
- •Claim had three grounds: ongoing breach of duty to ensure lawful healthcare plan; irrational decision to terminate a care provider's contract; entitlement to restitution.
- •Claimant partially successful on ground 1 (breach of duty).
- •Relief hearing to determine consequential order, permission to appeal, and costs.
- •Disagreement between parties on terms of mandatory order and claimant's application for permission to appeal.
Legal Principles
Unreasonableness test is contextual, requiring evaluation of evidence.
Judgment
In unjust enrichment claims, any enrichment must be at the claimant's expense (Barton v Gwyn Jones [2023] AC 684).
Barton v Gwyn Jones [2023] AC 684
Costs generally follow the event; court has discretion to adjust.
CPR rule 44.2(7), HLB Kidsons v Lloyd’s Underwriters [2007] EWHC 2699 Comm, Novartis AG v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 86 (Pat)
Outcomes
Claimant partially successful: Ground 1 (breach of duty) allowed; Grounds 2 and 3 dismissed.
Defendant failed to provide lawful healthcare plan (Ground 1). Ground 2 (irrational termination of contract) and Ground 3 (restitution) failed on the merits and on standing respectively.
Mandatory order issued requiring the defendant to arrange the healthcare plan stipulated in section G of the claimant’s EHC plan within 28 days.
Defendant in continuing breach of duty under section 42(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014. Order focused on addressing the illegality, not extending beyond providing the plan itself.
Permission to appeal refused.
No real prospect of success on grounds of appeal; arguments lacked merit.
Defendant to pay two-thirds of claimant's costs.
Claimant was successful on one ground, although not fully successful overall; court exercised discretion considering competing factors.
Interim costs payment of £30,000 ordered.
Sufficient information available to justify interim payment given claimant's legal aid position.
Similar Cases
L, R (on the application of) V Hampshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 1928 (Admin)
HXN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge
[2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)
TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney
[2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council
[2023] EWHC 3162 (Admin)