ZZ v Croydon Council

Judicial review of a care-needs assessment concerns the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not substitution of the court’s view of the claimant’s needs or appropriate care package. The local authority retains evaluative responsibility, subject to its statutory duties and lawful, reasonable and fair decision-making.

Where damages are the only unresolved remedy and their assessment is likely to require disputed facts, evidence, disclosure or cross-examination, the issue may appropriately be transferred to the County Court. Indemnity costs require conduct that is unreasonable to a high degree; serious procedural defaults and delay do not automatically satisfy that threshold.

The claimant, a protected adult with complex care needs, challenged Croydon Council’s assessment and care plan under the Care Act 2014. The Council failed to file substantive grounds or evidence, breached interim directions concerning support, and ultimately conceded that the assessment and care plan were unlawful.

The parties agreed a consent order requiring the decision to be quashed and a fresh assessment and care plan. They remained in dispute about damages and costs. The issues were whether damages should be determined in the Administrative Court or transferred to the County Court, and whether the Council’s conduct justified indemnity costs.

1. The court approved the consent order and Statement of Reasons. The Council’s assessment and care plan dated 19 September 2024 were quashed, and the Council was required to undertake a fresh assessment and care plan within three months.

2. In challenges to care-needs assessments, the Administrative Court may examine the lawfulness of the assessment process, but it has no substitutionary jurisdiction and judicial review is not a merits appeal. The local authority must discharge its statutory duties and act lawfully, reasonably and fairly. The final evaluative judgment about the level of need and how needs should be met remains for the authority. In assessing the reasonableness of evaluative conclusions, the question is whether the primary decision-maker was reasonably entitled to take the view it did.

3. The Council conceded that its care plan breached section 18 of the Care Act 2014, and that the section 18(1) duties were not discharged by section 18(7). The court accepted that the claimant might in principle be entitled to damages for that breach, but made no substitutionary finding about the appropriate staffing level or care package.

4. The damages issue was transferred to the County Court. Unlike the fixed and readily calculable sum considered in R (CP) v North East Lincolnshire Council, the claim involved wide-ranging and unfinalised losses, unresolved factual issues, evidential gaps, and possible witness evidence, disclosure and cross-examination. Those features made the County Court procedure and case management more suitable, particularly after the fresh assessment.

5. Although the Council had repeatedly breached orders and caused delay and uncertainty, its conduct, viewed overall, did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable to a high degree. Costs therefore followed the event, but indemnity costs were refused.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined a judicial review claim at first instance and approved the parties’ consent order.