LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council

Permission for judicial review may be granted where a claim is arguable with a realistic prospect of success. A local authority’s evaluative judgment is not replaced by the court on judicial review, but the assessment must lawfully address the claimant’s relevant needs and explain the resulting provision. Where an assessment does not adequately address a material aspect of need, including the affordability of essential respite provision or support during school holidays, an arguable public-law challenge may arise. Interim relief may be granted where the balance of convenience and justice requires it, particularly to preserve essential support pending clarification of the evidence.

The claimant, a seven-year-old child with complex medical and developmental needs, challenged Bury Council’s assessment of need and related service-provision decisions. The challenge concerned evening care, the effects of her mother’s broken foot, funding for attendance at Special Spirits, and support during school holidays.

The court refused permission on the evening-care and broken-foot issues insofar as they were advanced as freestanding grounds. Permission was granted on the Special Spirits and school-holiday issues, with the remaining issues deferred on a rolled-up basis where they overlapped with those arguable grounds. The court also considered interim relief and the adequacy of the evidence concerning funding.

1. Permission. Permission for judicial review was granted on the grounds that the Council’s assessment and service-provision decision did not adequately address the claimant’s continuing attendance at Special Spirits, and that the relevant decisions did not adequately address her care and support needs during school holidays. These grounds were arguable with a realistic prospect of success. Permission on the evening personal-assistant and broken-foot issues was refused as freestanding grounds, although overlapping aspects were deferred for a rolled-up hearing.
2. Lawfulness of assessment. The Council remained the primary decision-maker. Judicial review did not permit the court to substitute its own evaluative assessment for that of the local authority. The court’s function was to supervise the lawfulness of the decision-making, including the adequacy of the assessment, explanation and response to the claimant’s needs. On the evening-care issue, the Needs Assessment provided a lawful and careful basis for the flexible allocation of four hours’ support. The broken-foot challenge had no realistic prospect of success on the evidence.
3. Special Spirits and school holidays. Special Spirits featured materially in the Needs Assessment and in the claimant’s support arrangements. The assessment did not adequately confront whether the claimant could continue attending the sessions, given the funding shortfall, increased charges and resulting debt. Nor did it contain a reasoned assessment of the claimant’s needs during school holidays or explain the later allocation of additional hours. Those omissions made the two grounds arguable.
4. Interim relief and disclosure. Applying the balance of convenience and justice, the court ordered additional direct payments equivalent to four Special Spirits sessions at £15 per session. Final determination of further interim relief was deferred pending focused disclosure and short position statements concerning the actual funding arrangements, charges and indebtedness. Parties to judicial review owed duties of candid disclosure, including at the permission stage. Costs were in the case.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an application for permission for judicial review and interim relief at first instance.