Bhatti, R (on the application of) v Bury MBC

Judicial review proceedings directed at one decision should generally be withdrawn or dismissed when that decision is withdrawn and replaced by materially different decisions. A challenge to the later decisions should ordinarily be brought in fresh proceedings, subject to exceptional cases where the later decision is substantially the same decision reconsidered on evidence filed in the existing proceedings, or where an issue of general importance remains live. The Administrative Court adjudicates specific challenges to discrete public-law decisions; it does not supervise the continuing performance of statutory functions. Where proposed grounds concerning community-care assessments substantially depend on disputed facts, an adequate statutory complaints procedure ordinarily displaces judicial review. Judicial review may remain appropriate if that process produces conclusions themselves amenable to challenge on public-law grounds.

The claimant had serious chronic medical conditions and challenged a local authority decision concerning her community-care assessment and financial contribution. After proceedings had begun, the authority withdrew the original decision, reassessed her needs and made fresh decisions. A consent order stayed the claim and contemplated possible reinstatement, but did not expressly provide for permission to challenge the fresh decisions.

The claimant filed amended grounds challenging the new decisions. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction, whether the existing proceedings could be amended or reinstated, whether time should be extended, and whether permission should be granted. The central questions were whether the fresh challenge required new proceedings and whether the statutory complaints procedure was an adequate alternative remedy.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction to determine the application. The earlier order had not dismissed the claim because the claimant had objected within the specified period.
2. Fresh decisions. The existing proceedings could not properly be used to challenge decisions taken on a different basis after the original decision had been withdrawn. The general rule identified in Rathakrishnan applied. The exception in R v SSHD ex p Turgut concerned a subsequent decision based on evidence filed in the proceedings which reached the same conclusion on the same issue. That was materially different from the present case. The exceptional circumstances identified in R v SSHD ex p Al Abi were also absent.
3. The consent order did not alter that conclusion. Properly construed, it contemplated reinstatement of the original challenge if necessary, not a new challenge to later decisions without a fresh permission stage. The parties could not confer jurisdiction by consent, and the order did not do so.
4. The Administrative Court’s function is to adjudicate specific challenges to discrete decisions, not to monitor the continuing performance of statutory functions. The claimant should therefore have issued fresh proceedings. Had amendment been permissible, the six-day delay would have been excused, but that issue did not affect the result.
5. Alternative remedy. The claimant was entitled to use the statutory complaints procedure under the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. The proposed grounds substantially depended on factual disputes concerning available services, engagement with health services, waiting lists and the claimant’s needs. Those issues were suitable for the complaints process. The reasoning in R (F and others) v Wigan Borough Council applied. Judicial review would arise only if the complaints process broke down or produced conclusions arguably unlawful or irrational.
6. The claim was dismissed. The court did not determine the substantive merits of the proposed grounds.

not stated in the judgment.