Judge criticises council that conceded care needs dispute

In ZZ v Croydon Council [2025] EWHC 1916 (Admin), Judge Melanie Plimmer, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, criticised Croydon Council’s conduct during the proceedings, after it failed to comply with directions to file its Detailed Grounds of Defence, and applied for five separate extensions of time.

The case concerned ZZ, a 33-year-old man with complex needs, including severe learning disabilities, epilepsy, autism and cerebral palsy.

ZZ requires continuous care and support. The council has responsibility for meeting his needs pursuant to the Care Act.

In the judicial review application, ZZ challenged the council’s decision in September 2024 regarding his care needs under the Care Act. The application was brought on behalf of the claimant, by his father.

Outlining the relevant procedural history, the judge said: “The Defendant filed Summary Ground of Resistance on 16 January 2025, but has not complied with directions to file Detailed Grounds of Defence following the grant of permission in the Order dated 27 February 2025.”

The Order also granted an Anonymity Order, and required the council to provide support to the claimant in the form of direct payments sufficient to fund 2:1 support during all waking hours, 3:1 support for time out of the house and 1 waking night member of staff.

The judge noted the council did not implement the support provided in the mandatory order, and only made a first payment after the claimant notified the council of an intention to make an application for enforcement of the mandatory order.

One day before the substantive hearing, the council conceded that its September 2024 care assessment and support plan were unlawful.

The council accepted that it had failed to meet its duties under section 18 of the Care Act, and that the plan did not reflect ZZ’s assessed needs.

The council agreed the decision should therefore be quashed, following which it would conduct a fresh assessment and produce a new care and support plan.

The judge said: “The defendant also agreed that in the meantime, the claimant should be fully protected by continuing to be provided with the package of support that is required pursuant to the interim order made earlier in these proceedings.”

The judge invited the parties to draft a Consent Order with an attached Statement of Reasons, which were submitted shortly before the hearing.

The parties were able to reach significant agreement, save on the issues of damages and costs.

The claimant sought damages for breach of statutory duty, citing “significant losses and undischarged debts to the care team and HMRC in relation to the failure to provide care for 10 hours of overnight needs since May 2024, and the failure to provide adequate personal budget since April 2023.”

However, the court declined to assess damages at this stage, finding that the claim may require an evidential inquiry and cross examination – making it unsuitable for determination in the Administrative Court.

The judge said: “There remain unresolved factual issues and gaps in the evidence. To fully resolve these matters, a lengthy procedure is likely to be required, in a case wherein all other grounds have been finally resolved in favour of the claimant, and he has been provided with the remedies sought, save for damages.

“The appropriate course is for the matter to be transferred to a forum better suited to resolving such issues, the County Court. In the event I declined to consider damages in these proceedings, [counsel for the claimant] invited me to issue directions to assist onward case management in the County Court. In my view the case would be more suitably case managed by the County Court, and probably at a point after the Claimant is re-assessed.”

Turning to costs, the judge noted that while it was already agreed that costs should follow the event, the claimant also sought indemnity costs.

Considering the application, she said: “The parties agreed that the relevant test is whether it can be said that the Defendant’s conduct has been “unreasonable to a high degree”.

“It is very regrettable that the Defendant has flagrantly and repeatedly breached the Court’s Orders. The delay in providing interim relief and the Defendant’s failure to formally set out its position in Detailed Grounds has undoubtedly caused unnecessary delay and upset for the Claimant and his family.

“[…] Whilst I am satisfied that the Defendant acted unreasonably at times and this has led to unnecessary delay and uncertainty, when all the circumstances are considered together, I am unable to conclude the Defendant has acted unreasonably to a high degree. I therefore conclude that the high threshold required to order indemnity costs is not met.”

Concluding the case, Judge Melanie Plimmer approved a finalised a Consent Order and Statement of Reasons, which had been finalised by the parties.

Lottie Winson