L & P v Warwickshire

L & P v Warwickshire

The claim for judicial review was refused on the principal ground (Ground A) due to delay, as the substantive decision to cut funding was made in February 2013 and the claim was brought out of time. On the merits, there was no common law or statutory duty to consult on the budget decision, and no conspicuous...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: L (by his mother and litigation friend LM); Claimant: P (by her mother and litigation friend RP); Defendant: Warwickshire County Council; Interested Party: Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
Outcome
Permission refused on Grounds A, B, and C; permission granted on Grounds D and E with declaratory relief only.
Legal Topics
Duty to Consult, Procedural Fairness, Local Offer Under Children and Families Act 2014, Register of Disabled Children, Statutory Guidance Compliance, Legitimate Expectation, Delay in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Education Law Local Government Law Children Law Disability Law Duty to Consult Procedural Fairness Local Offer Under Children and Families Act 2014 +4 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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L (by his mother and litigation friend LM)

Claimant

P (by her mother and litigation friend RP)

Claimant

Warwickshire County Council

Defendant

Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant unlawfully failed to consult on cuts to funding for social care services for disabled children (Ground A)
  2. 2 Whether the consultation on the Local Offer was unfair, unlawful, or breached legitimate expectations (Ground B)
  3. 3 Whether the Local Offer consultation was unlawful for failing to alert consultees to proposed breaches of statutory guidance (Ground C)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for judicial review was refused on the principal ground (Ground A) due to delay, as the substantive decision to cut funding was made in February 2013 and the claim was brought out of time. On the merits, there was no common law or statutory duty to consult on the budget decision, and no conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power. Grounds B and C were unarguable as the consultations held were sufficient and the approach to assessments was not unlawful. Permission was granted on Grounds D and E, with findings that the Local Offer was deficient and the defendant was in breach of its duty to maintain a register of disabled children, but no substantive relief was ordered...

Court Disposition

Permission refused on Grounds A, B, and C; permission granted on Grounds D and E with declaratory relief only.

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review on Ground A refused for delay and lack of merit.
  • Permission refused on Grounds B and C as unarguable.