Lindley, Regina (on the Application of) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 21 Sep 2006

The claimant, aged 69 suffered from cerebral palsy. The council had provided his care but he said they had represented to him that care would be provided in a new facility, and claimed a legitimate expectation. The defendant said that its changed assessment of his needs meant that no representation could be expected to continue.
Held: At the time of the first letter the authority were not aware of the specific client’s needs. At one point the applicant had not wanted the move, and at another he accepted that the move would be inappropriate for his needs, and ‘it is hard to see how the claimant has been relying on the assurances in such a way as to be a detriment. The facts suggest that such commitment as was made by the defendants in the letters concerned has not, for the bulk of the period since they were written, been relied upon by the claimant. ‘ No legitimate expectation had been created.


Hodge J


[2006] EWHC 2296 (Admin)




National Assistance Act 1948 21, National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47, Care Standards Act 2000 3


England and Wales


CitedRegina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
CitedRegina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Newham and Bibi and Al-Nashed CA 26-Apr-2001
The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a legitimate expectation: ‘In all legitimate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Local Government

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.245059