Agyemang, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey

Judgment

Lord Justice Patten :

This is an appeal by a claimant in judicial review proceedings against a costs order made by Haddon-Cave J on 17 February 2016 following the compromise of the proceedings. The judge made no order for costs. The claimant, who is publicly funded, says that she should have been awarded her costs because she had obtained by agreement substantially all of the relief which she had been seeking in the proceedings. This, she says, brought her within the first of the three categories of case described by Lord Neuberger MR in his judgment in R (M) v Croydon London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 595 at [60]. The judge’s order was, she contends, wrong in principle.

The background facts can be summarised quite shortly. The claimant is a Ghanaian citizen subject to immigration control who has a five year old daughter. They live within the London Borough of Haringey and the Respondent Council has provided accommodation for them as part of its functions under s.17 of the Children Act 1989 . The claimant complained that the Council, in breach of s.17, had failed to make any subsistence payments to her and that she and her daughter were forced to live on the £20.70 she was receiving by way of child benefit. In April 2015 the Haringey Migrant Support Centre wrote to the Council on the claimant’s behalf setting out the claimant’s financial circumstances and saying that unless the failure to provide adequate subsistence payments could be justified they proposed to place the matter into the hands of solicitors.

The Council’s response was that the claimant had failed to provide full information about various bank accounts which she held but these were eventually provided in September 2015. The Council continued not to make any subsistence payments and, according to the claimant, told her that she should first attempt to obtain financial support from the child’s father. On 10 September 2015 solicitors instructed on behalf of the claimant sent an e-mail to the Council asking it to provide an explanation as to why it continued to refuse to make subsistence payments. A response was requested by 16 September.

It is convenient at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of s.17 which were in issue. So far as material, they provide:

“(1) It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this Part)—

(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need