Michael Sherratt, R (on the application of) v Bolton Council
[2024] EWHC 699 (Admin)
RW v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
7 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1449 (Admin)
High Court
A man with autism needs help going to a support group. The council said the extra costs weren't covered, even though they are important for his well-being. The court said the council was wrong and must reconsider, focusing on what's best for the man, not just the money.
Key Facts
- •RW, a vulnerable adult with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), attends a support group (Step Together Group) with associated activity costs.
- •The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Defendant) refused to deem these activity costs as "disability-related expenditure" (DRE).
- •This decision impacts RW's available income and creates hardship.
- •The case concerns the interpretation of paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014.
Legal Principles
Care Act 2014 promotes the well-being of adults with care and support needs, placing the individual's well-being at the heart of the law.
Care Act 2014, sections 1 and 2
Disability-related expenditure (DRE) is excluded from income assessments when determining charges for care and support.
Care Act 2014, section 17; Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, schedule 1, paragraph 4
In community care cases, the intensity of judicial review depends on the profundity of the impact of the determination; high intensity review is necessary.
R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] UKSC 23
Severability applies to striking down offending parts of enactments, not decisions about enactments. Substantial unlawfulness in decision-making may suffice to quash a decision.
R (Hemming) v Westminster City Council [2017] UKSC 50
DRE should be interpreted flexibly, considering the individual's needs and whether the expenditure is reasonably related to their disability.
Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex C, paragraphs 39-41
Decisions on DRE should not be based purely on financial considerations; outcomes and value for money should be considered.
Care and Support Statutory Guidance, §11.27
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy, and full inclusion in society.
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Articles 3 and 19
Outcomes
The Defendant's decision was unlawful.
The Defendant failed to properly consider the relevance of the activity costs to RW's disability, the necessity and reasonableness of the costs, and the impact of alternative options on RW's well-being. The Defendant gave undue weight to financial considerations.
The Defendant's decision was quashed.
The public law error was material and central to the decision. Severance was not deemed appropriate due to the substantial unlawfulness.
The Defendant must remake its decision.
The court is not to dictate the final outcome but ensure a lawful approach.
Similar Cases
P (by her litigation friend SP), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 113 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
YVR (R on the application of) v Birmingham City Council
[2024] EWHC 701 (Admin)