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 derived from his destitution, and that they had no obligation to assist. He had failed at first instance but succeeded on appeal.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded. The three requirements for assistance were cumulative: He must be in need of care and attention, that need must arise from age, illness disability of otherwise, and the care and attention required must not be available otherwise than by the provision of accommodation. The last resort care from NASS was to be discounted. Care and attention must be doing something for a person which he could not be expected to do for himself, and did not include the provision of things or accommodation, but was otherwise included all forms of social care and practical assistance. The requirement for care was not to be linked to the provision of accommodation.
Looking at its duties under section 21(1)(a): ‘ there were two questions for the council: (1) was SL in need of care and attention? (2) if so, was that care and attention ‘available otherwise than by the provision of accommodation under section 21’? They answered the first in the negative, and the second in the affirmative. The issue for the courts, applying ordinary judicial review principles, was whether they were reasonably entitled to take that view. In agreement with the judge on both issues, I would hold that they were. ‘
Lord Neuberger P, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 27, [2013] 1 WLR 1445, [2013] PTSR 691, [2013] HLR 30, [2013] 3 All ER 191, [2013] BLGR 423
Bailii, Bailii Summary
National Assistance Act 1948
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Avtar Singh 25-Jul-1967
A Commonwealth citizen said he wanted to come to the UK so as to marry a girl here. He had no right at all to be admitted. The statute gave the immigration officers a complete discretion to refuse. The Lord Chief Justice held that they were under no . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
At first instance – SL, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council Admn 15-Nov-2010
Application for permission to seek judicial review of a decision in a letter from the Council’s solicitor, to refuse to accommodate the claimant pursuant to duties under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Held: The claim . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte M etc CA 17-Feb-1997
The court recognised the potential role of local authorities under section 21(1)(a) in meeting the needs of those seeking asylum and otherwise, but having benefits withheld pending determination of their claims. Asylum seekers who had been excluded . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Cited – Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Cited – Zarzour, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough Of Hillingdon Admn 1-May-2009
The applicant was an asylum seeker awaiting a decision on his claim. He was totally 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.
Cited – Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Secretary of State for Social Services; In re Packer CA 1981
Mrs Packer, a lady of eighty-three, claimed an attendance allowance under the Act of 1975 in respect of the cooking of her meals which she could not do herself. The Commissioner thought that eating was a bodily function and that cooking was so . .
Cited – Regina (Zarzour) v Hillingdon London Borough Council CA 2009
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 . .
Appeal from – SL v Westminster City Council and Others CA 10-Aug-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s rejection of his request for assistance under the 1948 Act. He was a failed asylum seeker, who having been destitute, had become mentally ill.
Held: The applicant’s appeal succeeded. As to . .
Cited – SO, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham CA 12-Oct-2010
The court was asked upon whom falls the financial burden of providing accommodation to an eighteen year old asylum seeker who is also a ‘former relevant child’, to the extent that his welfare requires it, where the asylum seeker is not in education . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Local Government, Immigration
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.503502