Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (ex parte Kujtim): CA 31 Mar 1999

A person had been assessed by the local authority under section 47 as being a person in urgent need of care and attention which was not otherwise available to him, so that he satisfied the criteria laid down in section 21(1)(a). He claimed that, following that assessment, the local authority had to meet these needs by providing accommodation until, upon a reassessment, it was decided that his needs had changed.
Held: The argument succeeded. The contrary argument, that this was no more than a ‘target’ duty in the sense of the label used in R v Inner London Education Authority, Ex p Ali in relation to the Education Act 1944, was rejected: ‘Once a local authority has assessed an applicant’s needs as satisfying the criteria laid down in section 21(1)(a), the local authority is under a duty to provide accommodation on a continuing basis so long as the need of the applicant remains as originally assessed, and if, for whatever reason, the accommodation, once provided, is withdrawn or otherwise becomes unavailable to the applicant, then (subject to any negative assessment of the applicant’s needs) the local authority has a continuing duty to provide further accommodation.’
Potter L
[1999] EWCA Civ 1153, (1999) 2 CCLR 340, [1999] 4 All ER 161
National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a), National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inner London Education Authority, Ex parte Ali 1990
The broad duty imposed on a local education authority by section 8 ‘to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools . . for providing primary education’ is a ‘target duty’. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.146068