S, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council

S, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council

Permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the claimant had an adequate alternative remedy via the statutory complaints procedure, failed to follow the pre-action protocol, and did not act promptly. None of the substantive grounds advanced, including discrimination, fettering of discretion, or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the application of S; Defendant: Hampshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Children in Need, Disability Discrimination, Judicial Review, Alternative Remedies, Delay in Judicial Review, Assessment of Needs, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Disability Law Child Law Children in Need Disability Discrimination Judicial Review Alternative Remedies Delay in Judicial Review +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

The Queen on the application of S

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's refusal to provide services to S following the 2009 Assessment was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Council's criteria for services for disabled children are discriminatory under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to follow mandatory guidance and act fairly in the assessment process

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the claimant had an adequate alternative remedy via the statutory complaints procedure, failed to follow the pre-action protocol, and did not act promptly. None of the substantive grounds advanced, including discrimination, fettering of discretion, or failure to follow guidance, disclose an arguable case for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused