AFP Manchester City Council v St Helens Borough Council

A renewed application for permission to seek judicial review must be filed promptly. Where no good reason explains delay, permission may be refused without extending time.

Under the National Assistance Act 1948, responsibility for community care depends on ordinary residence. A local authority’s assessment does not itself create an irrevocable duty to continue funding an existing package. A determination of ordinary residence may require the authority identified as responsible to reassess need, but does not require it to maintain the same services.

Past provision does not ordinarily create a legitimate expectation of indefinite funding where no clear assurance was given and reassessment remains inherent in the statutory scheme.

Manchester City Council sought renewed permission to challenge St Helens Borough Council’s decision to cease funding community care for PE, who had moved from St Helens to Manchester and received a substantial care package funded by St Helens.

The Secretary of State had determined under the statutory scheme that PE was ordinarily resident in Manchester. Manchester did not challenge that determination. It argued that St Helens remained under a continuing duty following its assessment and provision of care, and that withdrawal breached legitimate expectations and was irrational.

The court first considered whether the claim, filed after the decision, was out of time and whether time should be extended. It then considered the substantive grounds shortly.

1. Delay. The claim was filed out of time. The correspondence made the decision date clear, and no good reason was given for the delay after 2 July 2008. The court therefore declined to extend time and refused permission on that ground.
2. Sections 21 and 29. Section 21 concerned residential accommodation provided by the local authority. PE’s assessment identified supported living in her own accommodation, so section 29 was the appropriate provision.
3. Continuing duty. The statutory scheme did not support the submission that an assessment under section 47 imposed a continuing duty to provide the same care package. The Secretary of State’s determination meant that Manchester was responsible for making arrangements and carrying out an assessment. It did not require Manchester to continue the existing package.
4. Change of circumstances. The court did not decide whether a change of circumstances was legally necessary. It held that, in any event, the best-interests process, the experts’ recommendations, and the Secretary of State’s determination constituted a clear change justifying reconsideration.
5. Legitimate expectation and rationality. St Helens had given no express undertaking to fund PE indefinitely. Its conduct did not amount to an abuse of power or a clear and unambiguous representation. Reassessment was inherent in the circumstances, and the decision to cease funding was rational and supported by cogent reasons.
6. The court did not determine which local authority was ultimately responsible, because that issue did not require separate determination at the permission stage. St Helens was awarded its costs of the acknowledgment of service and defence, but not its costs of attending the hearing. The interested party’s costs were subject to detailed assessment.

First instance renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by a deputy High Court judge.