A, R (on the application of) v North Central London Integrated Care Board
[2024] EWHC 2881 (Admin)
R(A) v North Central London Integrated Care Board
23 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2682 (Admin)
High Court
A severely disabled child's care provider was fired. The court ruled the health board should have ensured a proper care plan existed, but the decision to fire the provider was not unreasonable given the issues with the provider and difficulty finding a suitable replacement. The parents can't get their money back for paying for care themselves, because the case is in the child's name, not theirs.
Key Facts
- •A, an 11-year-old boy with a life-threatening and life-limiting condition (SLC13A5 Citrate Transporter Disorder), requires intensive healthcare.
- •A has been receiving NHS Children and Young People’s Continuing Care since 2015, commissioned by the North Central London Integrated Care Board (ICB).
- •The ICB terminated the contract with Enviva, A's care provider, leading to A's parents privately funding his care at a cost of approximately £10,000 per week.
- •The case concerns the ICB's duty to ensure a lawful healthcare plan for A, the rationality of terminating Enviva's contract, and the parents' claim for restitution.
Legal Principles
Duty to arrange healthcare provision specified in an EHC plan.
Children and Families Act 2014, s.42(3)
Interpretation of 'arrange' in s.42(3) of the 2014 Act encompasses ensuring the provision is in place and taking reasonable steps to arrange it if not.
Children and Families Act 2014, s.42(3); Purposive Interpretation
Section 42(3) of the 2014 Act imposes an absolute and non-delegable duty; not a 'best endeavours' obligation.
R(L) v Hampshire County Council [2024] EWHC 1928 (Admin)
Test for irrationality in public law: A decision is unreasonable if no sensible authority would have taken it.
Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143; R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Trader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418
Unreasonableness test is contextual; intensity of review depends on the impact of the determination.
R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] PTSR 1189
Restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment as a remedy in judicial review.
R(CP) v North-East Lincolnshire Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1614; Barton v Gwyn-Jones [2023] AC 684
Outcomes
Claim succeeds on Ground 1 (breach of duty to ensure a lawful healthcare plan).
The ICB failed to take reasonable steps to secure an updated healthcare plan after the EHC plan was finalized, despite conceding its duty to 'arrange' such a plan.
Claim fails on Ground 2 (irrationality of terminating Enviva's contract).
The ICB's decision, while acknowledging the difficulties with Enviva and the need for a rapid transition, was within the range of reasonable decisions given the circumstances, particularly the late withdrawal of parental consent to the proposed replacement provider.
Claim fails on Ground 3 (restitution for parents' private healthcare funding).
A, not his parents, is the claimant; therefore, he hasn't suffered the necessary pecuniary loss for a restitution claim.
Similar Cases
TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney
[2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
North Central London Integrated Care Board v AA & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWCOP 44 (T3)
HXN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge
[2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)
L, R (on the application of) V Hampshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 1928 (Admin)