Davis & Anor v West Sussex County Council

Safeguarding investigations by a local authority may attract judicial review even where the authority also has a contract with the care-home operator. Where serious findings may affect a provider, its business, staff or professional standing, fairness ordinarily requires adequate notice, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and respond, and consideration of relevant evidence. Government guidance issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 must generally be followed unless there is good reason to depart from it. A vulnerable-adult-centred investigation does not justify avoidable procedural unfairness where safeguarding does not conflict with fair treatment of affected third parties. Contractual remedies do not displace public-law remedies where the challenged decisions concern abuse findings and referrals rather than the operation of the contract itself.

The claimants owned two care homes and challenged findings and recommendations made by West Sussex County Council following a safeguarding vulnerable adults case conference. The conference substantiated allegations concerning residents and required numerous actions, including referrals of staff to professional bodies. The claimants argued that they had received inadequate notice, insufficient disclosure and no fair opportunity to respond. They also relied on the No Secrets guidance, the Sussex Multi-Agency Policy and an assurance that the investigation report would be shared and considered before the conference.

The council contended that the process was centred on protecting vulnerable adults, that the dispute was contractual, and that any defects were cured by later reviews. The issues were whether the process was procedurally fair, whether the council had failed to follow its guidance and legitimate expectation, and whether judicial review was available.

1. Application granted. The determinations and recommendations arising from the safeguarding case conferences were unlawful and were quashed, except that relief relating to the contractual Default Notice was not pursued.
2. The council was exercising public functions when it investigated allegations of abuse and made safeguarding decisions. The investigation would have occurred whether or not a contract existed. The challenged decisions concerned whether abuse had been established and its consequences, including professional referrals, rather than whether the contract should continue or be altered. Applying Supportways Community Services Ltd v Hampshire County Council and R (Weaver) v London Quadrant Housing Trust, the process had a sufficient public-law nexus.
3. Fairness was context-sensitive. Here the allegations were serious and complex, the report was lengthy and imprecise, and the consequences were substantial. The claimants were entitled to adequate notice, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and respond, and a fair opportunity to address the decision-maker. The conference was unfair because the report was supplied shortly beforehand, relevant participants were excluded, the adjournment request was not considered, relevant evidence was not shown to the conference, and conclusions were drawn about matters outside Mrs Davis’s knowledge.
4. The council failed fully to follow the Sussex Multi-Agency Policy. Its assurance that the investigation report would be shared before the conference and that time would be given for a detailed response created a legitimate expectation. No good reason justified departure from it. Later reviews did not cure the original unfairness, particularly as a further case conference occurred without informing the claimants or inviting representations.
5. The need to protect vulnerable adults did not provide a defence. There may be cases where that protection justifies limiting third-party procedural rights, but no such conflict existed here. Quashing was necessary and appropriate because the decisions continued to affect the claimants and staff.

not stated in the judgment.