How appealing – a victory for common sense in the Court of Appeal

Posted on 09-07-10

Tags:
No Tags

Summary: On July 1 2010 Freeth Cartwright successfully defended a judicial review action bought against Nottingham City Council (the “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 the 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:

(1) 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.

(2) 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. We were glad that we could secure such a positive result while also keeping the Council’s expenditure to a minimum.

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.

EML lawyers are committed to helping you to settle claims out of Court wherever possible. This is because we understand that (as the Court recognised in this case) local authorities simply do not have the resources to spend time and money defending a number of judicial review proceedings all the way to trial. Of course whether an out-of-court settlement is possible will depend on whether the other party is willing to compromise and, if a trial is unavoidable, our team of litigators has the expertise required to defend claims up to the highest levels.

Further information: If you have any questions concerning judicial review proceedings or any other forms of litigation and would like to talk to someone from our team please contact either Stephen Pearson or Gavin Carr (details below):

Stephen Pearson