A, R (on the application of) v North Central London Integrated Care Board

A mandatory order should address the illegality established by judicial review and should not extend beyond the court’s determination. Where a healthcare authority remains under a statutory duty to arrange an agreed healthcare plan, the order may require that plan to be arranged by a specified date without making compliance conditional on agreement about the care provider. Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. The importance of a case does not, by itself, establish a compelling reason. In costs matters, the court retains a broad discretion. A party may be the overall winner despite losing distinct issues, with the costs consequence reflecting the extent of its success.

The claimant, a severely disabled child, had partly succeeded in an earlier judicial review concerning the defendant integrated care board’s continuing healthcare obligations. The earlier judgment found an ongoing breach of the duty to arrange a lawful healthcare plan, rejected an irrationality challenge to the termination of a care provider’s contract, and rejected a restitution claim based on unjust enrichment.

This hearing concerned the consequential order, permission to appeal, and costs. The issues included the scope of the mandatory order, whether permission should be refused on the restitution issue, whether the proposed grounds of appeal had a real prospect of success or raised another compelling reason, and the appropriate proportion of costs.

1. Consequential order. The restitution claim was properly treated as a question of relief rather than a ground of judicial review. The final order therefore should not record refusal of permission on that issue, but should state that the claim for restitution on the grounds of unjust enrichment was refused.
2. The mandatory order had to address the illegality found by the court: the continuing failure to arrange the healthcare plan stipulated in section G of the claimant’s EHC plan. It should not require the defendant also to arrange the care specified in that plan, because that would extend the relief beyond the extent of the illegality established. Nor should compliance be made conditional on the parties agreeing a registered care provider. The defendant was ordered, pursuant to Children and Families Act 2014, section 42(3), to arrange the healthcare plan by 4 pm 28 days from the date of the order.
3. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The unreasonableness challenge had no real prospect of success because the assessment was contextual and fact-specific, and the first-instance court was best placed to evaluate the evidence. It was unnecessary separately to determine alleged deficiencies in the former care provider’s outdated plan. The restitution ground also lacked a real prospect of success: under Barton v Gwyn Jones [2023] AC 684 at [77], the claimant had to show that any enrichment was at his expense, whereas his parents had paid for the care.
4. The importance of the claimant’s care and the seriousness of his disability did not, without more, amount to another compelling reason. The proposed standing issue was in any event obiter unless permission were granted and the claimant succeeded on the irrationality ground.
5. Costs. The claimant was the successful party, although he had not succeeded on all grounds or obtained all remedies. Applying the court’s broad discretion, the defendant was ordered to pay two thirds of the claimant’s costs on the standard basis, with an interim payment of £30,000 within 21 days.

The judgment records that the claimant had partly succeeded in the earlier first-instance judicial review judgment, R(A) v North London Integrated Care Board [2024] EWHC 2682 (Admin). This hearing dealt with consequential relief, permission to appeal, and costs. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.