Alloway, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley

Judicial review examines the legality and rationality of a local authority’s decision-making, not which care placement is best. A statutory assessment need not always be repeated, but the authority must consider relevant up-to-date information before making a rational decision. An authority unlawfully fetters its discretion by ruling out a suitable option in advance, particularly where that decision rests on materially inaccurate cost information or an incomplete comparison of alternatives. The court may quash the decision, but should not substitute its own view of the appropriate placement unless the lawful outcome is inevitable.

The claimant, a profoundly autistic young man with severe learning difficulties and epilepsy, required a suitable 52-week residential placement after leaving Purbeck View School. His parents preferred Hesley Village & College. The local authority instead offered Robinia Care or Solent Residential Homes.

The claim challenged the authority’s compliance with its statutory duties, the adequacy of its consideration of the claimant’s assessed and developing needs, its treatment of costs, and its alleged decision to exclude Hesley from consideration. The central issue was whether the authority had made a lawful and rational decision about the available placements.

1. Judicial review and assessment. The court’s function was to review the legality of the authority’s decision-making, not to decide which placement was best for the claimant. A further statutory assessment under section 47 was not required as a matter of law. However, the authority had to consider relevant developments and up-to-date information, and its decision had to be rational.
2. Resources and suitability. The authority was not relying on lack of resources to avoid its duty. The question whether resources could be considered under sections 47 and 21, and whether Barry or Tandy applied, had not been sufficiently argued or decided. An authority could, at least in principle, consider resources when choosing between different ways of providing suitable care.
3. Fettering and flawed reasoning. By February 2004 the authority had effectively ruled out Hesley as too expensive before viable alternatives had been identified. The cost reasoning was materially flawed, including an apparent misunderstanding of what Hesley’s quoted fee covered and the absence of proper exploration of possible health-service contributions. There was also no clear like-for-like comparison of the costs and suitability of the proposed placements. The authority had therefore unlawfully fettered its discretion and reached a flawed decision.
4. Remedy. The decisions evidenced by the letter of 27 July, and if necessary the earlier decision of 5 July offering Robinia and/or Solent, were quashed. The court declined to order the authority to accept the Hesley placement, since a lawful and informed decision might still select another suitable option. A fresh decision was required urgently. The claimant received costs, subject to detailed assessment, and liberty to apply was granted on short notice concerning further relief.