March 28, 2025

X -v- London Borough of Wandsworth (anonymity order)

Administrative Court Civil High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-004042

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 March 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Eady DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
X
(by his mother and litigation friend, Y)

-v-

London Borough of Wandsworth

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE

Anonymity:
(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as X, and his mother and Litigation Friend is to be referred to as Y.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Mandatory interim relief/expedition and/or rolled up hearing: The Claimant’s application for interim funding for/delivery of 15 hours of 1:1 care over seven days per week, on top of any core hours otherwise in place/for expedition and/or rolled up hearing is refused

3. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

4. Costs: No order as to costs.

5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an adult with significant learning, health and care needs. The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission: the Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review is put on two bases.

The first relates to a past failure (arising from an error made by the Defendant) to meet the Claimant’s assessed needs. In this regard, the Claimant seeks a declaration that the Defendant acted unlawfully. The Defendant accepts that it erred in this regard, and has apologised for the failure to meet the Claimant’s assessed needs between October 2023 to September 2024. In the circumstances, I do not consider there are continuing grounds to support the application.

The second basis of claim relates to the care assessment of 9 September 2024. It is the Claimant’s case that this amounts to an unlawful assessment of his needs and/or an unlawful, alternatively irrational decision in the resulting care plan based on that assessment. The Claimant says that this assessment/care plan needs to be viewed in the context of the Defendant’s earlier error (R(CP) v NE Lincolnshire County Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1614 at paragraph 86); it is further contended that the net reduction to the Claimant’s daily and weekly 1:1 care support has not been adequately explained or justified, and that the Defendant’s approach is irrational because the Claimant’s care needs have not reduced.

I do not consider that it arguable that the assessment of September 2024 was necessarily tainted by the Defendant’s earlier (admitted) error; this is acknowledged at the outset of the assessment and I cannot see that it is arguable that the previous error had the same kind of continuing effect as that in issue in R(CP). I am also not persuaded that it is arguable that the care plan has not been adequately explained or justified: the assessment provides the explanation/justification; it is detailed and specific to the Claimant’s needs for care and support.

As for the more general disagreement with the assessment, and the Claimant’s contention that his needs have not reduced since the earlier assessment in 2023, I note the specific context of the 2023 assessment (when the Claimant was undertaking a period of transition to a new home) and the different placement model relevant to the September 2024 assessment.

Having regard to the detailed points of complaint that the Claimant seeks to raise, I consider that these are such as would be appropriately resolved using the relevant complaints procedure. I note the Claimant’s response to this suggestion in the pre- action correspondence, but no Reply has been filed that seeks address the Defendant’s case that such alternative remedy would better address the differences of view as to the adequacy of the assessment in issue (see the observations in R(F) v Wirral BC [2009] EWHC 1626). As the Defendant has pointed out, ultimately the issue in this case is narrow, and relates to the decision whether the additional hours of care provided to the Claimant by way of background support should instead be provided as 1:1 support. That, it seems to me, is a question that is most obviously to be addressed not by the Court but by those with the most relevant expertise, under the complaints procedure.

3. Other applications: Given the view I have formed in relation to the merits of the claim,
I am not persuaded that grounds have been shown that would warrant the exceptional grant of mandatory interim relief in this case. Although I am sympathetic to the Claimant’s need to obtain a satisfactory resolution of his grievance relating to the assessment of his needs for care and support, I also do not consider it would be appropriate to direct an expedited rolled-up hearing in this case.

(4) Costs: no application has been made for costs.

Signed: MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Date: 14 MARCH 2025