[2025] EWHC 1680 (KB)

G1: Amendment. The Respondent submitted that: (1) the Judge was right to rule that the S.117 claim was a new claim asserting that the Defendant had to pay the Claimant under S.117 or as the responsible Local Authority or as DB’s DWP benefits appointee. Such could not be raised in a Reply (relying on Martlet Homes v Mulalley [2021] EWHC 296 and [2022] EWCA Civ. 32). (2) The Judge was right to rule that the new claim did not arise from the same facts or substantially the same facts, albeit the Respondent accepted, through counsel, that the facts were “connected”. (3) The Judge was right to hold that the debts, at least from 2015, were statute barred and this was not well argued below. (4) The Judge was right to rule that the new claim had poor prospects because in R (Afework), although Mostyn J ruled that paying for care home accommodation was covered by S.117, paying for normal accommodation was not. The implication of this submissions was that Radnor House was “ordinary accommodation”. (5) The Judge was right to accept the Defendant’s counsel’s submission that the Defendant would have to join the relevant NHS body if the new claim were allowed. (6) The Respondent set out a long justification for why they were the responsible body under S.117, the relevance of which is unclear to me. Then, a further long explanation of the law and guidance (described as confusing) relating to the joint or several liability of Clinical Commissioning Groups in 3 boroughs for the S.117 duties was set out. The Respondent submitted that it would all be very complicated and the Judge rightly accepted that. (7) The Respondent submitted that the Judge had DB’s lack of capacity in mind when refusing relief.

G2: Relief from sanctions. The Respondent submitted that the Judge was correct to have regard to British Gas when he concluded that the application “must have delayed these proceedings” (para. 13) and that it was very serious. The Respondent analysed the Claimant’s witness statement in support dated 27.9.2023 and criticised the delay between May and September 2023 in making the application which was before DB’s capacity was assessed. The Appellant did not raise CPR r.21 or CPR r.3.10 before the Judge. The misunderstanding of the date for filing the costs budget was also criticised. Overall, the decision was within the scope of the discretion available to the Judge and should not be overturned.