Antwa, R (On the Application Of) v Lambeth Children's Social Services

On an application for interim relief in judicial review proceedings, the court must assess the balance of convenience, including whether refusing relief may cause irredeemable harm. That assessment does not require the court to resolve disputed factual issues finally. Where a local authority has recently conducted an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and the evidence does not permit the court confidently to conclude at an interim hearing that the assessment is wrong, the court should not proceed on the contrary factual assumption. The authority may instead be required to undertake a fresh assessment where it agrees to do so, but interim accommodation need not be continued automatically pending that reassessment.

The claimant, a mother with three children, sought judicial review of Lambeth’s refusal to provide emergency accommodation under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She alleged that the children’s father had ended his support, leaving the family homeless. Lambeth disputed that account and considered that the family situation was being manipulated to obtain publicly funded accommodation.

The claimant also challenged Lambeth’s December 2015 child and family assessment and sought a fresh assessment. Lambeth agreed at the hearing to reassess the family’s circumstances through a newly allocated social worker. The central issue was whether an interim mandatory injunction requiring continued accommodation should be extended pending that reassessment.

1. Interim relief refused. The interim mandatory injunction made on 1 March 2016 was not extended. The claimant and children were not entitled to continued accommodation on the evidence available at the hearing.
2. In deciding whether to continue interim relief, the court had to consider the balance of convenience, including whether refusal might cause irredeemable damage to either party. The potential vulnerability of children was an important consideration, but it did not determine the application.
3. The court recognised a real risk that local authorities, and ultimately the judicial review process, might be manipulated in disputes about family support and homelessness. Lambeth had recently conducted an assessment after investigating the family’s circumstances. Although that assessment might not be reliable, the material before the court did not enable it to conclude that the assessment was mistaken or wrong.
4. The court therefore could not proceed on the assumption that the children were, notwithstanding the assessment, children in need for the purpose of the interim application. The disputed factual issues were matters for Lambeth to investigate and address in the agreed reassessment.
5. Lambeth agreed to carry out a prompt reassessment by a freshly allocated social worker with an open mind. The reassessment issue was accordingly resolved by agreement, while the application to extend accommodation was refused.