EW & Anor v Nottinghamshire County Council

For judicial review purposes, a deficient core assessment may be remedied where the local authority’s subsequent conduct, considered holistically, properly analyses the child’s needs and clearly identifies how, by whom and by when those needs are to be met. The statutory guidance requires a systematic approach, but does not demand slavish adherence to every feature of the Framework or impose unrealistic standards on local authorities. A collection of documents may cumulatively satisfy the guidance where, taken together, they achieve the objectives of a core assessment.

The claimants, two children in need, sought judicial review of Nottinghamshire County Council’s compliance with its duties under sections 17(1) and 20(1) of the Children Act 1989. They challenged earlier and later core assessments and alleged that the Council had failed to provide accommodation for BW. The Council accepted that the original assessments were deficient, but relied on subsequent child protection conferences, plans, reports, care planning and new assessments. The court also considered a separate negligence claim filed in the proceedings.

1. Judicial review claim. Permission to proceed was refused because the claims did not have a sufficiently arguable chance of success.
2. Under section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, the Council was required to act in accordance with the relevant statutory guidance unless there was good reason not to do so. The central question was whether the process as a whole properly analysed the children’s needs and clearly identified how those needs were to be met, including by whom and by when.
3. The June 2007 core assessments were plainly deficient. They were brief, largely narrative and contained little analysis of the children’s precise needs or the means of meeting them. However, an assessment’s shortcomings may be neutralised by subsequent action which properly identifies the needs and the required services.
4. The approach in R (on the application of AB and SB) v Nottingham City Council (2001) 4 CCLR 295 was applied. The Framework requires a systematic approach directed to the same objectives as a core assessment, but does not require slavish adherence to every feature of the guidance or impose unrealistically exacting standards.
5. The child protection conferences, reports, plans and related documents cumulatively addressed the Framework’s domains and dimensions. Although some needs and proposed responses lacked precision, that reflected the practical difficulties presented by the children’s lack of engagement. The later core assessments of 28 January 2009 complied with the Framework.
6. The Council accepted that its duty under section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989 had been engaged because BW’s home accommodation was unsuitable. BW’s revised position meant that no order was sought on that issue.
7. The separate negligence claim was transferred to the ordinary Queen’s Bench Division list and stayed for three months to allow compliance with the pre-action protocol and further consideration by the parties. No order for costs was made in the judicial review claim.

First-instance judicial review decision. Permission to appeal was refused by Mr Justice Keith; the claimants were required to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission.