Surrey County Council v BC, R (On the Application Of)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a judicial review claim brought by the Respondent, a young person with a troubled background, against Surrey County Council ("SCC"). The claim alleged that SCC owed a duty to support and provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 ("CA89") after the Respondent presented as homeless to the local housing authority in September 2019.

The judge below allowed the claim and granted declarations that SCC owed the Respondent a duty under s.20 from 18 September 2019, that arrangements made for the Respondent to stay with a friend's mother from 17 October 2019 were pursuant to s.20, and that the Respondent qualified for assistance under sections 24 and 24B of the CA89. Permission to appeal was granted on several grounds, including whether the claim was brought in time or whether an extension of time should apply.

The procedural history includes the initial referral by the local housing authority to SCC in September 2019, subsequent social services involvement, the Respondent's hospitalisation under the Mental Health Act in October 2019, and a period of limited contact until August 2021 when pre-action correspondence was initiated. Proceedings commenced on 9 August 2022, raising issues of delay and substantive statutory duties under the CA89.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judicial review claim was brought promptly and within the statutory three-month time limit under CPR 54.5, or whether an extension of time was justified.
2. Whether SCC owed the Respondent a duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation from 18 September 2019.
3. Whether the arrangements made by SCC for the Respondent to stay with a friend’s mother constituted accommodation under s.20.
4. Whether the judge erred in applying the standard of review and in his assessment of the Respondent’s status as a "child in need" and the local authority’s duty.
5. Whether a continuing duty existed such that the delay in bringing the claim could be excused.
6. Whether the appeal court had jurisdiction to revisit the judge’s decision on permission and extension of time under CPR 54.13.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Surrey County Council)

• The judge erred in finding that the s.20 duty arose immediately upon SCC learning that the Respondent had applied to the housing authority, wrongly equating that application with a clear wish to be accommodated by SCC.
• The judge substituted his own decision for the professional social work judgment regarding whether the Respondent met the criteria for s.20 accommodation.
• The arrangements for the Respondent to stay with the friend’s mother were private and SCC only facilitated communication between the parties, not arranging accommodation under s.20.
• The judge failed to properly analyze the delay and wrongly granted an extension of time without regard to the duty to act promptly.
• CPR 54.13 does not bar the appeal against the judge’s decision on extension of time and permission.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge correctly found that the Respondent was a child in need and SCC owed a duty under s.20 from 18 September 2019.
• The Respondent was accommodated under s.20 from 17 October 2019, or alternatively from 20 September 2019 as contended on cross-appeal.
• SCC’s failure to provide accommodation and the delay in proceedings were excused by the continuing breach and continuing duty owed.
• CPR 54.13 precludes SCC’s challenge to the judge’s grant of permission despite timing issues.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Ex Parte Andreou [1996] 8 Admin LR 557	Importance of promptness in judicial review claims.	Reaffirmed the central importance of acting promptly in judicial review proceedings.
R (Good Law Project Limited) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355	Need for finality and certainty in public administration; promptness in judicial review.	Emphasized that public authorities require certainty as to the validity of their decisions; supports strict time limits.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482	Good reasons for delay if applicant unaware of decision; prompt action required once aware.	Clarified that ignorance of decision may excuse delay but promptness is required thereafter.
R v Secretary of State for Health Ex Parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652	Errors by applicant’s lawyers generally do not excuse delay.	Applied to reject delay excuses based on legal representatives’ errors.
R (Thornton Hall Hotel Limited) v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2019] EWCA Civ 737	Standard of appellate review on extension of time and judicial discretion.	Set out the test for appellate interference with first instance judge’s discretion on delay.
R (G) v Southwark LBC [2009] UKHL 26; [2009] 1 WLR 1299	Interpretation of s.20 CA89 duty to accommodate children; assessment criteria.	Provided structured approach to s.20 duties; clarified that being excluded and sofa surfing likely triggers duty.
R (G) v Barnet LBC [2003] UKHL 57; [2004] 2 AC 208	Wide construction of s.20(1)(c) CA89; local authority’s duty to accommodate.	Supported broad interpretation of parental prevention of accommodation as ground for duty.
R (M) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2008] UKHL 14; [2008] 1 WLR 535	Local authority’s discretion and duties under CA89.	Referenced in relation to continuing breach and duty arguments.
A v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8	Interpretation of "child" and duties under CA89.	Clarified distinction between factual questions and evaluative judgments in child welfare context.
R (TW) v Essex CC [2025] EWCA Civ 4	Assessment of child in need under CA89 and rationality of local authority decisions.	Confirmed local authority entitled to conclude early help appropriate over statutory intervention absent imminent homelessness.
R (L) v Nottinghamshire CC [2008] EWHC 2551 (Admin); [2009] 1 FLR 493	Delay and relief in judicial review claims involving children.	Demonstrated that delay may be excused in children’s cases but is limited to relief granted.
R (Collins) v Knowsley MBC [2008] EWHC 2551 (Admin)	Delay and continuing duties in child welfare cases.	Considered delay in context of ongoing looked-after status of child.
SA v Kent CC [2010] EWHC 848 (Admin); [2010] 2 FLR 1721	Delay and relief in judicial review claims involving children.	Limited relief due to delay but recognized continuing breach argument.
R (T) v Hertfordshire CC [2015] EWHC 1936 (Admin); (2015) 18 CCLR 632	Delay and relief in judicial review claims involving children.	Delay considered in context of young child’s ongoing care.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analyzed the timing and substance of the judicial review claim, focusing first on the issue of delay under CPR 54.5. The judge below had found that the claim was brought in time or an extension of time was justified due to a continuing breach and delay attributable to SCC’s late provision of documents. The Court disagreed, noting that the judge failed to identify when the three-month limitation period began, which was essential to any extension analysis. The Court found that the claim was plainly out of time by over two and a half years and that the delays from August 2021 onwards were attributable to the Respondent’s legal representatives, who failed to act promptly. The Court emphasized that judicial review requires prompt action and that delay cannot generally be excused by awaiting disclosure of documents.

On the substantive issue, the Court applied the statutory framework of the Children Act 1989 and relevant statutory guidance, particularly the National Guidance on homelessness and accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds. The Court accepted that the Respondent was a "child" and within SCC’s area, but disagreed with the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent was a "child in need" under s.17 and that SCC owed a duty under s.20 from 18 September 2019. The Court held that these are matters of professional social work judgment entitled to Wednesbury deference. The local authority’s assessment that the Respondent’s needs could be met through early help services, rather than statutory accommodation, was not irrational or unreasonable.

The Court further found that the arrangements for the Respondent to stay with the friend’s mother did not amount to accommodation provided by SCC under s.20, but rather private accommodation with some facilitation by SCC. The Court rejected the argument that SCC had a continuing duty that could override the delay rules, distinguishing this case from earlier authorities where claimants were children at the time of proceedings and where delay was considered in the context of ongoing breaches. Here, the Respondent was an adult when proceedings were issued, and the Court found no continuing cause of action.

Finally, the Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that CPR 54.13 barred the appeal against the judge’s decision on permission and extension of time, clarifying that that rule does not preclude appeals on delay issues.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and set aside the declarations made by the judge below. It held that:

• The judicial review claim was not brought promptly and was out of time under CPR 54.5, with no justified extension of time.
• SCC did not owe the Respondent a duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 from 18 September 2019.
• The Respondent was not accommodated by SCC under s.20 at any relevant time.
• There was no continuing duty owed by SCC that could excuse delay or affect the limitation period.
• The appeal court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite CPR 54.13.

The direct effect is that the Respondent’s claim for judicial review fails on grounds of delay and lack of a statutory duty owed by SCC. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the application of promptness and extension of time rules in judicial review claims involving children’s services and the limits of continuing duty arguments in such contexts.