Lindley, R (on the application of) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

In a substantive legitimate-expectation claim, the court must identify the promised benefit, determine whether the expectation is legitimate, and decide whether departure would amount to an abuse of power. For a substantive expectation, fairness must be weighed against any overriding public interest. Reliance and detriment are important considerations, although the court must assess the assurance in its factual and statutory context. A public authority may revise its view where developing evidence shows that the promised arrangement cannot safely or lawfully meet the claimant’s assessed needs. An expectation will not be enforced where the claimant has not materially relied on it and implementation would conflict with welfare requirements.

The claimant, a seriously disabled resident of a council care home, challenged the council’s proposal to close that home and transfer residents to Lomas Court, a very sheltered housing scheme. Correspondence stated that residents would be offered places and that their assessed care needs would be met. The claimant contended that these assurances created a substantive legitimate expectation that he would be transferred regardless of the level of care required.

The council later concluded that Lomas Court could not provide the claimant’s complex and deteriorating needs, including two workers available continuously in a residential setting. The court considered whether the assurances created an enforceable legitimate expectation and, if so, whether changed circumstances and welfare considerations justified departure.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The amended claim was arguable and permission was granted, but the substantive claim failed.

2. The case fell within the substantive legitimate-expectation category identified in R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213. The court had to determine whether the anticipated benefit was substantive, whether the expectation was legitimate, and whether departure would be so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power. That required balancing fairness against any overriding policy interest.

3. The practical framework in R (BIBI) v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 237 required identification of the authority’s commitment, consideration of whether the authority had acted or proposed to act unlawfully in relation to it, and determination of the appropriate remedy.

4. Reliance was relevant to detriment and to the assessment of unfairness. The court also considered the guidance in R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115 that detrimental reliance will ordinarily be significant where unfairness is found.

5. The assurances had to be assessed in context. The claimant had not wanted the proposed move for much of the relevant period, and later accepted that Lomas Court could not meet his needs. The council’s knowledge of those needs developed over time, and it was entitled to revise its assessment of the suitability of Lomas Court.

6. Even if an enforceable expectation had arisen, enforcing it would have been contrary to the claimant’s welfare. Lomas Court was not a registered care home and was not organised to provide the continuous two-worker residential care required. The court therefore declined to order the transfer.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The court granted permission on the rolled-up hearing but dismissed the substantive application.