LR (a child by mother and Litigation Friend LC), R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

This judicial review challenged Coventry City Council's provision to a no-recourse-to-public-funds (NRPF) family and the lawfulness of a children and family assessment dated 24 April 2024. Key legal principles applied were s.17 Children Act 1989 (local authority duties to children in need), Sch.3 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the restrictions on support for certain immigration-status groups), and the interplay with Articles 3 and 8 ECHR when para.3 Sch.3 permits support to the extent necessary to avoid a Convention breach.

The court held the authority’s written NRPF policy could lawfully be read as a subsistence baseline, welfare top-up model when read with its main policy, and dismissed the challenge to the policy as a whole. The court found the concrete April 2024 assessment misdirected itself by treating purported "statutory support rates" as determinative and concluded that the assessment irrationally failed to consider or make proportionate direct welfare provision for the children. The April 2024 assessment was quashed and remitted for lawful re-assessment.

This case concerned a fifteen-year-old claimant (LR) and her family, Nigerian nationals without current leave to remain and supported by Coventry City Council under its NRPF arrangements. The claimant alleged multiple grounds of unlawfulness: (i) that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 NIAA had been wrongly interpreted (Ground 1A); (ii) that current support breached Article 8 ECHR (Ground 1B); (iii) that the council’s assessment and decision misdirected the law and fettered its s.17 discretion (Ground 3 and Ground 2 of irrationality); and (iv) that the council’s NRPF policy unlawfully fixed support at essentially asylum-support levels (Ground 4).

• Nature of the application: judicial review seeking quashing of the challenged assessment and declarations/relief in relation to council policy and the level/approach to support.
• Issues framed: (a) statutory interpretation of Sch.3 NIAA and whether para.3 restricts the level of non-accommodation support to that necessary to avoid an ECHR breach; (b) whether Article 8 private or family life required more support than the family received; (c) whether the council’s NRPF policy unlawfully fettered s.17 discretion or misstated the law; (d) whether the April 2024 needs assessment misdirected itself in law and/or was irrational in failing to make appropriate provision for children’s welfare needs.
• Court’s reasoning (concise): the judge reaffirmed that para.3 Sch.3 operates to restrict non-accommodation support to the extent necessary to avoid a Convention-rights breach (so families unlawfully present sit in a different ‘statutory category’ from those with unrestricted s.17 entitlements), and that a lawful approach for restricted families is a "subsistence baseline" (cross-checked against asylum-support levels to avoid Article 3/destitution) with a flexible "welfare top-up" to meet assessed child welfare needs where necessary (preferably by accommodation or direct child provision where available).
• The court rejected the claim that the council’s main NRPF policy was unlawful when read as a whole, but found the associated "Support Rates" page could be misleading if read in isolation. The April 2024 assessment itself was held unlawful: it treated what it called "statutory support rates" as determinative, concluded (incorrectly) that additional support was "not possible," and failed to give proper consideration to meeting children’s welfare needs by means other than generic cash provision. That misdirection and the consequential failure to promote welfare rendered the assessment unlawful and irrational in part, and it was quashed and remitted for a fresh lawful assessment. The claimant’s challenge on Article 8 was dismissed on the evidence once the family were consistently receiving the asylum-support-equivalent amount.

The claim for judicial review is allowed in part. The court quashed the Children and Family Assessment dated 24 April 2024 and remitted it for re‑assessment because the assessment contained legal misdirection and was irrational in failing to have proper regard to and to promote the children’s welfare under s.17 Children Act 1989. The court rejected challenges to the defendant’s NRPF policy read as a whole and dismissed the Article 8 challenge to current support, but reaffirmed that paragraph 3 Schedule 3 NIAA permits non-accommodation family support only to the extent necessary to avoid an ECHR breach and that authorities should adopt a subsistence-baseline with flexible welfare top-ups.