GBK & Anor v Ceredigion County Council

Permission to bring judicial review proceedings requires an arguable public law flaw in the decision-making process. The court must not substitute its own assessment for that of the public authority entrusted with the decision.

Where a risk assessment addresses a narrow issue, a paper exercise may be lawful if undertaken by appropriate professionals against the background of substantial prior engagement. The decision-maker must consider material risks and the needs of all persons affected, but disagreement with professional conclusions is insufficient. A possible delay ground does not justify permission where the substantive grounds are unarguable.

The claimants sought permission for judicial review of Ceredigion County Council’s November 2025 risk assessment and alleged continuing failures under sections 35 and 40 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

The dispute concerned whether an adapted wet room should contain a toilet. The first claimant, an adult with severe disabilities, required assistance with showering. The second claimant, her mother and carer, argued that she urgently needed access to a toilet while providing that care.

The grounds challenged the paper nature of the assessment, the treatment of material considerations, the identification of the mother’s needs, and the absence of a confirmed external carer. The Council also raised delay.

1. Permission refused. The claimants had no arguable grounds for judicial review of the November 2025 risk assessment.
2. The court’s function was supervisory. It was not permissible to substitute the court’s view for that of the Council, to which Parliament had entrusted the decision. Permission required an arguable public law flaw in the decision-making process.
3. The paper assessment was not unlawful. Its ambit was narrow: whether a toilet should be installed in the wet room. It followed extensive prior engagement, including statements, emails, a home visit, dimensioned plans and mediation. In that context, professionals could reasonably conclude that a paper exercise was sufficient.
4. The assessment had taken account of the relevant risks, including injury from involuntary movements, a possible fall from the trolley, the mother’s limited reach while using the toilet, sudden changes in water temperature, and injury to the mother if she attempted to prevent a fall. The matters relied upon by the claimants did not make the assessment arguably defective.
5. The mother’s needs were sufficiently identified in the detailed seven-page assessment. The reference to an alternative carer meant an alternative to the mother and did not necessarily require a confirmed external carer.
6. The Council’s delay argument might be arguable in relation to the July 2025 care plan, but that did not affect the refusal of permission, which rested on the substantive grounds.