The applicant Z awaited a decision on his asylum claim. He was blind, and needed help with dressing and laundry, with finding his way around his accommodation, and with shopping; he could not go out safely on his own. The judge upheld his claim to judicial review of the refusal to provide assistance under the 1948 Act. The Council appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. Laws LJ said: the real question here is whether the council’s own findings . . compel a conclusion that the claimant was in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21(1)(a) or, to put it in conventional public law terms, whether that conclusion was one which, on the facts, no reasonable council could reach.’ Laws went on to apply the approach of Lady Hale in the Slough case, agreeing that the applicant needed of ‘care and attention’, and that it was at least in part ‘accommodation-specific’. However, he added: ‘It is . . important to note that it has been accepted . . that the need of care and attention spoken of in section 21 was not such as necessarily to call for the provision of residential accommodation notwithstanding the fact that such provision is made by the statute the principal medium for meeting the need, and notwithstanding the further fact that, as other parts of Part III of the 1948 show, section 21 typically entails a move into local authority accommodation.’
Judges:
Laws LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 1529
Statutes:
National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.516355
