A question of entitlement
A judicial review action was recently brought against Nottingham City Council over whether two young people should be considered “relevant children” under the leaving care regulations. Stephen Pearson and Gavin Carr report on the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
On 1 July 1 2010 we successfully defended a judicial review action brought against Nottingham City Council. The case concerned two appellants (“X and Y”) who went all the way to the Court of Appeal to seek a review of the council’s refusal to treat them as “relevant children” for the purposes of the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 (the “Regulations”).
Background
X and Y (who at all relevant times were under the age of 18 and therefore technically children) both faced a number of difficulties living with their respective families. As a result of this both X and Y became homeless in 2007. The council provided both of them with hostel accommodation during which time they began a relationship and X became pregnant.
In 2008, during the course of X’s pregnancy, both X and Y were evicted from the hostel on suspicion of dealing in Class A drugs. The council then intervened on behalf of the unborn child and assisted in arranging for the couple to move in with X’s father.
X and Y commenced their judicial review action against the council in September 2009 (by which time they had both turned 18). X and Y claimed that they were entitled to all the services available to "former relevant children" under the Regulations and should be treated as such by the council. These services include, for example, the creation of a Pathway Plan and the provision of a Personal Adviser.
The council denied that X and Y were entitled to those services but nevertheless voluntarily offered to provide them on several occasions. X and Y did not respond to any of those offers.
X and Y’s claim failed in the High Court and, despite the council’s voluntary offer of the services, they appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:
- Proceedings should only continue if they are required to resolve a dispute. In this case litigation was far from necessary, the council had volunteered to provide X and Y with the services. This meant that, in practical terms, X and Y had obtained the remedy they required and as such the case served no useful purpose.
- The Court of Appeal does not exist to determine moot points. At a time when resources are severely stretched both the Court and the council have better things to do than spend time and money addressing unnecessary claims.
X and Y were ordered to pay the council’s costs of the appeal; these costs will be recovered from the Legal Services Commission.
What does this mean for Authorities?
We are dealing with an ever increasing number of judicial review actions as more people become aware of their ability to challenge decisions made by local authorities, not just in matters related to childcare Law, but also, for example housing, education and disability assessments. It is important that you are aware of the options available to your authority should such a claim be brought.
Stephen Pearson is a partner and Gavin Carr is a solicitor at Freeth Cartwright (www.freethcartwright.co.uk). Stephen can be contacted on 0845 274 6900 or via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
