R (on the application of A (by his mother and Litigation Friend, B)) (Appellant) v North Central London Integrated Care Board and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0100

Parties

Appellant(s)

A (by his mother and Litigation Friend, B)

Respondent(s)

London Borough of Haringey

North Central London Integrated Care Board

Issue

(1) What causal link is required between expenditure and a breach of statutory duty by a public authority to establish “unjustness” for the purposes of a restitution claim? (2) Can a severely disabled child bring a claim in restitution where his parents have met the costs of his care?

Facts

The Appellant is a severely disabled child whose epilepsy places him at risk of sudden death. He is eligible for continuing care under the NHS National Framework for Children and Young People’s Continuing Care 2016. The Respondent is responsible for commissioning the Appellant’s continuing care (while the Interested Party is responsible for the Appellant’s wider Education, Health and Care plan). The Respondent originally contracted with Enviva (the “First Provider”) for the Appellant’s care. The First Provider produced a detailed healthcare plan dated 13 June 2023. The Respondent became dissatisfied with the First Provider’s services, particularly due to staff shortages. Following inquiries into other providers and communication with the Appellant’s parents, the Respondent terminated the First Provider’s contract on 9 July 2024 and engaged Nursing Direct (the “Second Provider”) to provide care services to the Appellant from the following day. The Appellant’s parents were dissatisfied with the Second Provider and the lack of transition arrangements. They declined the Second Provider’s services and continued to engage the First Provider at their own cost. The Appellant, represented by his mother, brought a judicial review claim against the Respondent on the basis that the Respondent was in breach of its statutory obligations and that the Appellant’s parents were entitled in restitution to repayment of the costs incurred by them after 10 July 2024. The High Court held that the Respondent had breached its statutory duty by failing to arrange for an updated care plan for the Appellant and ordered the arrangement of an updated plan. The High Court rejected the restitution claim on the basis that the Appellant himself had suffered no loss. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the restitution issue and allowed the Respondent’s cross-appeal to the extent that it set aside the High Court’s mandatory order. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

18 June 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top