OA & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Bexley

MR SAM GRODZINSKI QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) BETWEEN : ____________________

AZEEM SUTERWALLA (instructed by Matthew Gold & Co) for the Claimants SI�N DAVIES (instructed by London Borough of Bexley Legal Services) for the Defendant Hearing date: 28 April 2020 ____________________

i) Ground 1 was that the Defendant had not undertaken proper inquiries into the suffiency of the food which could be purchased on the monthly allowance, to enable it to arrive at a rational conclusion that additional financial support was unnecessary. In particular, detailed criticisms were made about the thoroughness of the Defendant social workers' investigations into whether C2 was having to skip meals, eat small portions and/or otherwise regularly go hungry, in particular towards the end of each month when most of the allowance had been spent by C1.

ii) Ground 2 was that the Defendant had misdirected itself as to the proper interpretation of s.17 of the 1989 Act, in concluding that its duties under that provision did not extend to providing support which could take into account the position of C3.

iii) Ground 3 was that there had been an unlawful failure to consider whether providing additional support to C3 would safeguard or promote the welfare of C2; and avoid a breach of Convention (i.e. ECHR) rights. It particular, it was alleged that the Defendant had failed to undertake adequate inquiries as to the role that C3 played in relation to his brother.