Facts: JL suffered from autism and received 1,248 hours of support each year. Islington then changed its eligibility criteria, as a result of which disabled children with ‘high needs’ (such as JL) received only 624 hours each year. Islington later added a small number of additional hours to enable some respite provision to be made. JL sought a judicial review.

Judgment: Black J held that Islington had not undertaken a genuine assessment of JL’s needs but simply applied their new eligibility policy, that an eligibility policy could not be used to determine whether or not a local authority was under a duty to act under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (which imposed an absolute duty) and that Islington’s policy was flawed in a number of respects, in particular in that it had the effect of excluding needs that Islington would have decided it was necessary to meet (under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970). In addition, Islington had failed to discharge its duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when drawing up its criteria.