ZK, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council & Anor

ZK, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council & Anor

The defendants' position that the current accommodation was suitable pending reassessment was not irrational or unlawful, the section 117 assessment process was being properly followed, there was no unlawful delegation, all relevant material was considered, and no breach of Article 8 ECHR was established. The claimant's application did not meet the threshold for judicial review.

Parties
Claimant: ZK (by her litigation friend, JU); First Defendant: Norfolk County Council; Second Defendant: Norfolk and Waveney Clinical Commissioning Group; Interested Party: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (rolled Up With Substantive Consideration)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Section 117 Aftercare Duties, Accommodation as Aftercare, Judicial Review Standards, Delegation of Statutory Duties, Article 8 ECHR
Mental Health Law Administrative Law Human Rights Section 117 Aftercare Duties Accommodation as Aftercare Judicial Review Standards Delegation of Statutory Duties Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZK (by her litigation friend, JU)

Claimant

Norfolk County Council

First Defendant

Norfolk and Waveney Clinical Commissioning Group

Second Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (rolled Up With Substantive Consideration)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants unlawfully failed to provide suitable accommodation under section 117 Mental Health Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully delegated their section 117 duties
  3. 3 Whether the defendants failed to take into account relevant professional opinions

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' position that the current accommodation was suitable pending reassessment was not irrational or unlawful, the section 117 assessment process was being properly followed, there was no unlawful delegation, all relevant material was considered, and no breach of Article 8 ECHR was established. The claimant's application did not meet the threshold for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused