Alula, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

Under Children Act 1989, the continuing duties owed to a former relevant child after age 21 depend on the statutory conditions for extension being satisfied. Where the Pathway Plan contains no programme of education or training extending beyond the child’s twenty-first birthday, the extended duties cannot arise. The court will not require a local authority to include such a programme where the circumstances provide no arguable basis for doing so. A general challenge to the Pathway Plan does not necessarily raise that issue directly.

The claimant had been a relevant child under the Children Act 1989. She sought judicial review of Westminster City Council’s decision not to continue a Pathway Plan after she reached 21. She was an asylum seeker with a young child and wished to resume education with a view to qualifying as a nurse.

The claim also alleged unlawful involvement by her personal adviser in preparing the plan. The central issue was whether the absence of an education or training programme extending beyond her twenty-first birthday required continuation of the statutory duties under section 23C.

1. Permission refused. The claimant had no arguable basis for establishing that the Council had failed to comply with its statutory duty.
2. Section 23C(2) and (3) imposed duties to keep in touch with the former relevant child, continue the appointment of a personal adviser and keep the Pathway Plan under regular review. Section 23C(4) required assistance so far as welfare and educational or training needs required it. That assistance could not be provided to a person in the claimant’s position who was unlawfully present.
3. The ordinary duties under section 23C(2), (3) and (4) continued only until the former relevant child reached 21. Section 23C(7) extended the relevant duties where the Pathway Plan set out a programme of education or training extending beyond that birthday. Since the claimant’s existing plan contained no such programme, the statutory extension was unavailable.
4. There was no arguable basis for contending that the Council was required to include an education or training programme in the plan. The claimant’s wish to continue her education and the practical difficulties arising from childcare and immigration status did not establish such an obligation.
5. The allegation that the personal adviser had unlawfully participated in preparing the plan was unsupported by sufficient evidence. Although she attended meetings, the evidence did not show improper involvement making the plan unlawful.
6. The judge expressed sympathy for the claimant and hoped that the Council would consider sympathetically any specific future request for advice, but recognised that this created no particular legal obligation. Permission was refused. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were directed to detailed assessment.