TW, R (on behalf of) v Essex County Council
[2024] EWHC 264 (Admin)
TT v Essex County Council
3 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 826 (Admin)
High Court
A young woman sued the council because they wouldn't give her special help. The judge said she chose a different type of housing, so she wasn't eligible for the help, and kept her name secret for a while longer.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, a young woman, sought judicial review of Essex County Council's refusal to recognize her as an 'eligible child' or 'relevant child' under the Children Act 1989.
- •The claimant turned 18 during the proceedings, rendering the claim potentially academic.
- •The Council agreed to treat her as a 'former relevant child' despite disputing her previous status.
- •The claim concerned the Council's alleged unlawful policy regarding accommodation provided through the Essex Young People's Partnership (EYPP).
- •The EYPP accommodation was not considered 'looked after' accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
- •The claimant voluntarily chose EYPP accommodation, knowing it wasn't section 20 accommodation, and claimed Universal Credit to fund her rent.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is discretionary and will not generally be available where the claim is academic.
L, M and P v Devon County Council [2021] EWCA Civ 358
A declaration can be made in respect of a past wrong, but exceptionally good reasons are needed.
The Bank Of New York Mellon, London Branch v Essar Steel India Ltd [2018] EWHC 3177 (Ch)
Even if a claim is academic, the court may hear it if there is a good reason in the public interest (e.g., a point of statutory construction of public law affecting a large number of people).
R v Home Secretary ex p Salem [1999] AC 450
Local authorities cannot avoid their responsibilities towards 16-17 year olds by passing them over to housing authorities if section 20 criteria are met.
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] 1 WLR 535
If a local authority provides accommodation, they cannot avoid section 20 obligations by claiming to have acted under another power.
R (G) v Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299
A 16 or 17-year-old can agree not to be accommodated under section 20.
Government Guidance on the Prevention of Homelessness
Open justice is a fundamental constitutional requirement, but anonymity can be justified where necessary and proportionate to protect an individual's rights.
R (MNL) v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found the claimant had voluntarily chosen non-section 20 accommodation and was not an 'eligible' or 'relevant' child.
The court found the council was entitled to stipulate that EYPP accommodation was not section 20 accommodation, provided a meaningful alternative was offered.
EYPP is a separate entity, and the claimant was given a choice and voluntarily selected the EYPP option.
The anonymity order for the claimant was continued for two years until 1 April 2025.
Balancing the claimant's privacy concerns against the principle of open justice, the court deemed a limited time-bound anonymity order necessary.
Similar Cases
BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council
[2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council
[2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)
AOJ, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington
[2024] EWHC 427 (Admin)
LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin)