Sonia Gould & Anor, R (on the application of) v Devon County Council

A general or “target” statutory duty is not automatically a mandatory relevant consideration for every public-law decision. It becomes one only where the governing statute expressly or by necessary implication requires regard to be had to it. A target duty may nevertheless be an obviously material consideration, but only where failing to consider it would be irrational under the Wednesbury standard. Relevance depends on the nature of the decision, the breadth of the duty, the material available to the decision-maker and the risk of breach. The Care Act provisions were neither mandatory considerations nor obviously material to the closure of a non-statutory service with a limited function and alternative provision.

Two users of the North Devon Link Service challenged the decision of Devon County Council’s Cabinet to close the Service. They accepted that the Council was not exercising a function to which the Care Act 2014 provisions applied and had not breached those duties. They nevertheless argued that the Council should have considered the general prevention, integration and marketplace duties, either because they were implicitly mandatory relevant considerations or because their omission was irrational.

Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the claim in [2025] EWHC 96 (Admin). The appeal challenged that conclusion, the Judge’s treatment of evidence from Service users, and his findings on mandatory considerations and obvious materiality. The central issues were whether the Care Act duties had to be considered and whether their omission was irrational.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the judicial review claim.
2. The Court applied the established three-category approach to relevant considerations, restated in R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] UKSC 52 and derived from R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037. A consideration is mandatory only where the statute governing the decision clearly identifies it, expressly or by necessary implication. The appellants had not identified any governing statutory function which required the Council to have regard to the separate Care Act 2014 duties.
3. The Court accepted that it was difficult to rule out in principle that a non-engaged general or target duty might be obviously material. Such cases would be rare. Under the Wednesbury test, the court must consider the nature of the decision and duty, the breadth of the duty, the material available, the decision-maker’s control over the inquiry and the risk of breach. The Council’s decision-maker was entitled to determine the manner and intensity of inquiry, subject to rationality review.
4. R (DAT) v West Berkshire Council [2016] EWHC 1876 (Admin) did not expand the circumstances in which a statutory duty becomes mandatory. It concerned provisions expressly engaged by the governing statutory scheme and explained how decision-makers should be assisted to consider them. R (SARCP) v Stoke County Council [2025] EWHC 18 (Admin) likewise did not support the appellants’ argument, since it concerned expressly specified statutory factors.
5. The Judge was entitled to proceed on the basis that the Service was a non-statutory social and leisure service, rather than a crisis-prevention service. Subjective evidence from six users about its effect on their mental health was not expert evidence and did not establish the Service’s overall function. The Council had the necessary overview of its services and alternative mental-health provision.
6. In that context, the Care Act provisions were not obviously material. The Service did not meet eligible Care Act needs, alternative provision existed, the duties were broadly expressed, and breach was unlikely. The alternative argument under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not need to be decided.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal against the order below: [2026] EWCA Civ 687.
2. High Court of Justice (KBD), Administrative Court Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the judicial review claim: [2025] EWHC 96 (Admin).