The duty to meet respite care needs

The Claimant’s case in R (BNF, by his litigation friend BNX) v Newport City Council [2026] EWHC 1212 (Admin) is a rare example of a case which involved dual proceedings before the Administrative Court in Wales and the Court of Protection.

The Court of Protection proceedings are ongoing but had stalled as a result of the Local Authority’s failure to provide available options for respite care provision for the Claimant and his sister, who was also his full time carer. This led to a judicial review challenge. The Administrative Court in Wales (HHJ Jarman KC) has now given judgment.

The Administrative Court held that the local authority was in breach of its duties under the Social Services Well-being (Wales) 2014 Act (“the 2014 Act”) by failing to meet the Claimant’s eligible care need for 42 days respite care provision per year.

In the judgment the Court considered the statutory framework and statutory guidance such as it relates to care and support needs, direct payments, and welfare duties in Wales.

The Court confirmed the Local Authority’s duty to meet eligible care needs under s.35 of the 2014 Act (which is not linked to resources).

It also confirmed that, under s.50 of the 2014 Act (now s.49A) and the Social Services Well-being (Wales) Act 2014: Code of Practice, the Local Authority must be satisfied that eligible needs can be met by direct payments and that the rate of direct payments offered is sufficient to meet the eligible care needs before it confirms the same as part of a person’s care and support plan.

Finally, the Court reiterated the person-centric approach to care planning required under the 2014 Act, and the need for the person receiving care’s wishes and feelings and their well-being to be given proper regard when care planning.

This case is one of a very small number of reported judgments which considers social care legislation and guidance in Wales and will provide welcome guidance for legal practitioners and social workers in Wales.

David Gardner of No5 Chambers acted for the successful Claimant. He was instructed by Jess Haley of Irwin Mitchell LLP.