BK & Anor v Leeds City Council & Anor

A dispute about whether a child was looked after by a local authority, particularly where the dispute has financial consequences, will ordinarily be determined by judicial review in the Administrative Court. An application under the inherent jurisdiction may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, especially where linked care proceedings are already on foot, the relevant parties are before the family court and the evidence is substantially available there. The existence of private law proceedings, or a possible future special guardianship application, does not by itself justify using the inherent jurisdiction. The court must consider whether doing so would replicate the case management and hearing structure of judicial review.

BK and CK cared for RN after her move from her mother’s care in July 2021. They sought a declaration that RN, and formerly her adult sister TN, had been looked-after children until an interim child arrangements order was made in December 2022. The dispute affected potential financial support.

The applicants issued the declaration application under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction while private law proceedings concerning RN remained pending before the family court. Leeds City Council was not a party to those proceedings and supported RN remaining with the applicants. The central issue was whether the declaration application belonged in the Family Division or should have been brought by judicial review in the Administrative Court.

1. Application refused. The declaration application had been issued in the wrong forum. The order determined only the appropriate court forum and did not decide the substantive dispute about RN’s legal status.
2. The ordinary position, recognised in Re B [2013] EWCA Civ 964, is that a challenge to local-authority decision-making of this kind should be brought by judicial review in the Administrative Court.
3. Salford City Council v W and others [2021] EWHC 61 did not establish that every dispute about looked-after status with financial implications could be determined under the inherent jurisdiction. That decision turned on particular circumstances: existing care proceedings, the local authority and declaration applicants already being parties, the subject children being children, and relevant evidence already being before the court.
4. The present case was materially different. There were no linked care proceedings, Leeds City Council was not a party to the private law proceedings, and TN was an adult with no linked family proceedings. Bringing the matter under the inherent jurisdiction would effectively reproduce the case management and hearing structure of judicial review.
5. The possible future application for a special guardianship order did not alter that conclusion. Although financial support might be relevant to that application, the efficiency considerations identified in Salford were absent. The private law child arrangements application should continue in the Magistrates’ Court under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.