LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council
[2023] EWHC 3162 (Admin)
TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney
1 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
High Court
A disabled child's family needed more help from the council. The council didn't properly assess their needs, so a judge ordered them to do it again and keep providing some temporary help in the meantime.
Key Facts
- •TS, a 13-year-old significantly disabled child with Williams Syndrome, requires extensive care.
- •Her parents, facing a crisis, sought increased support, including respite care at Bayis Sheli (BS), a specialist provider.
- •Hackney Borough Council rejected their request in a Child and Family Assessment (February 2023) and Care Package Panel Review (March 2023).
- •The family challenged these decisions via judicial review.
- •The court granted interim relief, ordering Hackney to accommodate TS at BS for two nights per week pending the judicial review.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need (section 17, Children Act 1989).
Children Act 1989
Local authorities must conduct lawful assessments of children's needs, following statutory guidance (Working Together to Safeguard Children).
Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018)
Local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation for children in need who require it due to their carers being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care (section 20(1)(c), Children Act 1989).
Children Act 1989
Statutory guidance must be followed unless there is a considered decision to deviate, with good reason.
R (G) v Lambeth LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 526
Post-proceeding reasons must be treated with caution.
R (Nash) v Chelsea College of Art and Design [2001] EWHC (Admin) 538
Outcomes
Claimant succeeded on Ground A (unlawful assessment).
The council failed to analyze TS's needs, adequately address the family's crisis, engage with their proposals, and provide a realistic plan of action, breaching statutory guidance.
Claimant succeeded on part of Ground B (breach of section 20(1)(c) duty).
The council failed to determine whether its duty under section 20(1)(c) was engaged, a public law error. The court found it could not reliably conclude that the council considered the duty.
Claimant succeeded on Ground C (irrational service provision).
The flawed assessment process rendered the care package decision irrational and illogical. The council failed to follow its own social worker's recommendation and to provide a realistic plan.
Quashing order made for the Assessment and Review; Council to maintain interim injunction while completing a new assessment.
To ensure a lawful assessment of TS's needs and decision on a care package.
Similar Cases
SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
[2024] EWHC 158 (Admin)
P (by her litigation friend SP), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)