A, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth (Rev 1)

A Pathway Plan must do more than record a young person’s present circumstances. It must identify present and likely future needs and provide a sufficiently specific operational plan stating who will do what, where and when. The requirement applies particularly to personal support, finance and accommodation. The plan must explain how identified needs will be met and by whom, including imminent needs beyond the immediate position. A plan that merely records current financial or accommodation arrangements is unlawful. In assessing costs, the court may consider party conduct under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.3, but alleged non-engagement or procedural non-compliance will not justify a reduced or indemnity costs order without a sufficient connection to the litigation costs or sufficiently serious conduct.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Lambeth’s failure to prepare a lawful Pathway Plan under the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001. Following an earlier judgment on 7 July 2010, which held that the June 2010 plan was unlawful, the defendant produced a revised plan on 26 July 2010.

The remaining dispute concerned whether the revised plan adequately addressed finance and accommodation, and whether the claimant’s costs should be reduced or assessed on an indemnity basis. The court determined whether the revised document contained the detailed operational planning required by the statutory scheme.

1. The revised Pathway Plan was unlawful. The statutory scheme required the assessment and plan to address nine matters, including personal support and accommodation. In each area, the plan had to contain a detailed operational plan specifying who was to do what, where and when, as explained in R(J) v Caerphilly CBC [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin). It also had to look beyond immediate requirements and address imminent needs, as recognised in R(K) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin).

2. As to finance, the plan recorded the claimant’s subsistence payment, budgeting ability and access to advice. It did not analyse his likely future financial needs or specify in sufficient detail how and by whom those needs would be met. A statement of the current financial position was insufficient.

3. As to accommodation, the plan recorded the existing supported placement and the proposed application for independent living. It did not adequately analyse the claimant’s current or likely future accommodation needs, the safety of possible accommodation, or whether supported accommodation in the public or private sector was appropriate. Nor did it specify how and by whom those needs would be addressed.

4. The claimant was entitled to the full costs of the proceedings. The central issue was the defendant’s failure to produce a lawful Pathway Plan. Alleged failures by the claimant to attend meetings or engage with the defendant were not shown to have materially increased the litigation costs.

5. Although the court could consider party conduct under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.3, the alleged failures to comply with particular court orders did not justify indemnity costs. Costs were therefore to be assessed on the normal basis.