Michael Sherratt, R (on the application of) v Bolton Council

Michael Sherratt, R (on the application of) v Bolton Council

The Defendant's approach to DRE was unduly restrictive and inconsistent with statutory guidance and its own policy. The claim would have succeeded on its legal merits. The Claimant is entitled to costs as the outcome achieved by consent reflected the relief sought in the claim, and the Defendant had ample opportunity to avoid costs but failed to do so.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Sherratt (by his mother and litigation friend Stephanie Sherratt); Defendant: Bolton Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal by Consent
Outcome
Claim withdrawn by consent; costs determined in favour of Claimant
Legal Topics
Disability Related Expenditure, Care and Support Assessment, Judicial Review Procedure, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Social Welfare Law Disability Related Expenditure Care and Support Assessment Judicial Review Procedure Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Sherratt (by his mother and litigation friend Stephanie Sherratt)

Claimant

Bolton Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant lawfully assessed Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) in the Claimant's financial assessment for care charges
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's approach to DRE was consistent with statutory guidance and its own policy
  3. 3 Whether judicial review was the appropriate remedy or whether the Local Government Ombudsman was an adequate alternative remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's approach to DRE was unduly restrictive and inconsistent with statutory guidance and its own policy. The claim would have succeeded on its legal merits. The Claimant is entitled to costs as the outcome achieved by consent reflected the relief sought in the claim, and the Defendant had ample opportunity to avoid costs but failed to do so.

Court Disposition

Claim withdrawn by consent; costs determined in favour of Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant’s reasonable costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed
  • Detailed assessment of publicly funded costs in accordance with Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013