Court of Appeal to hear appeal by council over whether it owed s.20 Children Act duty to claimant when he was 17

The Court of Appeal this week will hear an appeal by Surrey County Council over a High Court judge’s decision to allow a judicial review claim against the local authority’s refusal to comply with duties said to be owed to the claimant under the Children Act 1989 when he was 17 years old.

The claim before Calver J centred in particular on the duty under section 20(1)(c) to provide accommodation for a "child in need" in the local authority's area who appears to it to require it as a result of "the person who has been caring for the child being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care".

The respondent had presented himself as homeless to Runnymede Borough Council, which considered he was Surrey's responsibility as he was still a child. BC was already well known to the county council, having previously been a child in need of support.

BC asserted that Surrey had a duty to support him and provide accommodation under s.20 Children Act 1989, and that this duty arose due to the local authority making arrangements for him to stay with his friend’s mother.

In BC, R (On the Application Of) v Surrey County Council [2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin) Calver J granted BC permission to bring the claim and, to the extent set out in the judgment, allowed the claim.

Mr Justice Calver said BC was entitled to the following declarations:

1. By 18 September 2019 the council owed BC a duty under section 20 CA89 to provide him with accommodation; and
2. The arrangements that Surrey made for BC to stay with his friend's mother on and after 17 October 2019 were arrangements made by the council pursuant to section 20 CA89; and
3. BC had thereby acquired the status of "a person qualifying for advice and assistance" under section 24 CA89.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Coulson, Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Whipple) will hear Surrey’s appeal on 18-19 March.

Catherine Rowlands of Cornerstone Barristers, who is appearing for Surrey, said the Court of Appeal will consider whether Calver J was correct to find that Surrey should have treated BC as being owed the duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 when he applied as homeless to another local authority, and where he subsequently lived with a friend rather than with his mother.

She added: “The Court below found that, when the Claimant’s support worker gave him a lift back to this accommodation, that amounted to arranging accommodation for him and that, although he did not ask for assistance at that time, he was owed duties as a care leaver some four years later. The Court will also consider whether permission to seek judicial review out of time should have been granted by the Judge.”