Aburas, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark

Factual and Procedural Background

This claim for judicial review concerns the intersection of local authority functions under Part I of the Care Act 2014 (CA14) relating to assessing and meeting adult needs for care and support, and human rights arguments invoking Articles 3 and 8 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA98). The claimant, a 58-year-old stateless individual with mental health issues and failed asylum status, contended that he had a 'looked-after need' requiring social worker support to access food and medication, which in turn necessitated the provision of accommodation. The defendant local authority assessed his needs and concluded that no relevant care and support needs arose under CA14, directing him to seek accommodation and subsistence support from the Home Secretary through Asylum Support.

The claimant's case was referred to the local authority by a non-governmental organisation working with vulnerable migrants. The local authority conducted a needs assessment, including a manager's review, ultimately determining that the claimant had no eligible or non-eligible needs under CA14. The judicial review focused solely on whether the local authority's assessment was compatible with Convention rights. The Home Secretary was not a party to the proceedings, and no decision by Asylum Support was before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the local authority's needs assessment under CA14 was compatible with the claimant's Convention rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Whether the claimant had a 'looked-after need' for social worker support whose effective delivery required accommodation, the denial of which would breach his Convention rights.
3. The proper interpretation of the relationship between CA14 duties and powers and human rights obligations in the context of persons with irregular immigration status.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The claimant asserted a 'looked-after need' for social worker support to access food and medication.
• This support, to be effective, required the provision of accommodation, refusal of which breached his Convention rights.
• The claimant relied on the statutory human rights compliant route under CA14 section 19 to secure accommodation-plus support.

Defendant's Arguments

• The local authority contended that even if the claimant was destitute and in need of accommodation and subsistence, it was the Home Secretary's responsibility through Asylum Support to provide human rights-compatible accommodation and subsistence.
• Southwark maintained it lawfully discharged its statutory functions under CA14 read with HRA98.
• They argued the claimant had no eligible or non-eligible 'looked-after needs' triggering local authority duties or powers under CA14.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by clarifying the legal framework under CA14, emphasizing that 'needs for care and support' are 'looked-after needs'—needs requiring active assistance because the person cannot meet them alone. The need for accommodation itself is not a 'looked-after need' but may be necessary to enable effective delivery of care and support ("accommodation-plus").

The court accepted that the claimant, as a failed asylum-seeker and person in breach of immigration control, is generally excluded from CA14 support except where refusal would breach Convention rights, in which case the local authority's power under section 19 must be exercised compatibly with HRA98.

Applying human rights jurisprudence, particularly Limbuela, the court assessed whether the claimant faced an imminent prospect of serious suffering caused or materially aggravated by refusal of social worker support and accommodation. The evidence did not establish that the claimant required social worker support to ensure medication compliance or food intake, nor that accommodation was necessary to deliver such support. The professional assessment by the social worker responsible for the claimant's case was that no care needs arose under CA14.

While the claimant's friends and supporting NGO expressed concerns about vulnerability and need for support, these did not outweigh the formal professional assessment. The court found no convincing objective basis to reject the social worker’s conclusions.

The court distinguished the claimant’s situation from cases where accommodation forms part of meeting care needs triggering a statutory duty, noting that destitution and accommodation needs are matters for the Home Secretary and Asylum Support.

The court further considered the interaction between CA14 and other statutory schemes, rejecting reliance on the Localism Act 2011 for care and support needs, affirming that CA14 section 19 read with HRA98 provides the appropriate framework.

Finally, the court accepted the legal approach allowing consideration of evidence post-dating the assessment and found no unfairness in doing so.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the claimant’s application for judicial review.

The holding confirms that the local authority lawfully discharged its duties under CA14 by concluding that the claimant had no eligible or non-eligible 'looked-after needs' requiring social worker support or accommodation. The decision clarifies the boundary between local authority responsibilities under CA14 and the Home Secretary’s duties regarding destitution and accommodation for failed asylum-seekers.

No new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to the facts. The ruling emphasizes the necessity of a 'looked-after need' properly assessed under CA14 criteria to trigger local authority obligations and confirms that accommodation needs alone do not suffice.