Court Grants Interim Relief and Judicial Review Permission in LHG v Bury Council Case on Statutory Duties for Child in Need

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3162 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council presents an examination of statutory duties pertaining to a child in need under the Children Act 1989 and ramifications of the local council’s decisions regarding provision of support services and funding. FORDHAM J presides over the matter, addressing applications for interim relief and judicial review permission, with a meticulous assessment of the legal principles involved.

Key Facts

The claimant is a child with complex needs, including a serious genetic disorder and developmental delays, rendering her a “child in need” as per applicable statutory classifications. The central issues of the case revolve around the provision of services from Special Spirits, a respite provider deemed essential for the claimant, and the council’s assessment of her care needs, especially during school holidays.

A critical component of the case is the funding for the claimant’s attendance at Special Spirits, which has apparently been insufficient to cover the fees after the costs doubled. Another key point of contention is the lack of clarity on the council’s provision for the claimant’s needs during school holidays. The claimant’s mother’s broken foot is also discussed, but not considered a ‘freestanding’ ground for judicial review.

The High Court addresses the following legal principles:

  • Duties under the Children Act 1989: The legal duties of local authorities to conduct lawful assessments of needs for children in need and to provide adequate services in response to those assessments.
  • Statutory and policy frameworks: The case cites regulations such as the Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011 and departmental advice on “Short breaks for carers of disabled children”.
  • Judicial review and interim relief: Guidelines for when a judicial review and interim relief are appropriate, emphasizing the function of the court as a supervising body to ensure lawfulness, rather than a substitute for the local authority’s decision-making role.
  • Anonymity: The court addresses the need for anonymity to protect the legitimate interests of the child and her siblings.

Outcomes

The Court’s decisions in this case are:

  1. Anonymity Order: Granted to safeguard the identity of the claimant and her family.
  2. Permission for Judicial Review: Granted for two of the four key aspects of the case - relating to Special Spirits funding and the school holidays provision, highlighting a potential breach of statutory duties.
  3. Refusal/Deferral of Judicial Review: Aspects of the claim related to the evening personal assistant need and the claimant’s mother’s broken foot did not constitute grounds for a ‘freestanding’ judicial review but may be considered if they overlap with the granted claims.
  4. Interim Relief: Interim relief was granted for the cost of the claimant’s attendance at Special Spirits at the reduced rate (£15), with further considerations ‘on the papers’ scheduled.
  5. Costs: Costs in the case were deferred pending final resolution.

Conclusion

In LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council, the Court grants permission for judicial review and interim relief on critical aspects involving the statutory rights of a child in need. As the claimant’s need for services from Special Spirits and support during school holidays were not adequately addressed in the assessment or subsequent responses, the court highlights potential breaches of statutory duties. This case underscores the responsibilities of local councils in conducting comprehensive needs assessments and ensuring necessary provisions are adequately funded, to meet children’s needs in alignment with legal frameworks.