Gould v Devon County Council: Court of Appeal rejects Care Act challenge to mental health drop-in closures

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by two former users of the North Devon Link Service, a network of drop-in facilities for adults with mental health difficulties, after Devon County Council resolved to close the service in March 2024. The judgement, handed down on 2 June 2026, confirms that broad "target" duties under the Care Act 2014 did not constitute mandatory relevant considerations for a decision of this nature.

The Council closed the service, which had operated from centres in Barnstaple, Bideford and Ilfracombe since 1992, citing budgetary pressures of £485,000 per annum and the duplication of provision by voluntary organisations funded through the Devon Mental Health Alliance. The appellants, Sonia Gould and Alice Jeffrey, had argued that the Council was required to have regard to the prevention, integration and marketplace duties under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Care Act 2014 when reaching its decision, even though those provisions were not directly engaged by the exercise in question.

Lord Justice Phillips, with whom Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk agreed, upheld the first instance judgement of Eyre J, who had dismissed the judicial review claim in January 2025.

On the question of user evidence, the Court held that witness statements from six service users, describing the service as having kept them mentally stable and prevented crisis, carried no legal weight in the absence of expert evidence. Phillips LJ observed that subjective accounts from individuals without qualifications in mental health, however sincerely held, could not displace the Council's own assessment of the service's limited, non-clinical function.

The central issue concerned whether the Care Act provisions amounted to mandatory relevant considerations under the well-established CREEDNZ framework. The Court affirmed that considerations in the first category of that framework must be clearly identified, expressly or by necessary implication, in the governing statute. Since the Council was not exercising any statutory function when closing the service, and no statutory provision required it to have regard to the Care Act duties in that context, those duties could not be categorised as mandatory.

The appellants had relied heavily on the first instance decision in R (DAT) v West Berkshire Council, arguing it stood for the proposition that statutory duties could be mandatory relevant considerations where a decision might impact their performance. The Court of Appeal rejected that reading. In DAT, the relevant duties were expressly engaged by the statutory framework governing short breaks for disabled children; the decision said nothing about when duties arising under a separate statute could attain mandatory status without textual foundation.

Phillips LJ warned that the appellants' broader argument, if accepted, would effectively collapse the distinction between the first and third categories of the CREEDNZ taxonomy, exposing public bodies to an unworkable obligation to consider a wide range of loosely relevant statutory duties in every decision-making exercise.

On the question of obvious materiality, the Court found the threshold of Wednesbury irrationality had not been crossed. The service was not provided pursuant to any statutory obligation, it did not address eligible needs under the Care Act, and alternative provision existed across the Council's area. Significantly, the appellants' own counsel accepted that, had the Care Act provisions been included in the Cabinet report, it would have been entirely proper to advise that they were neither engaged nor breached, which the Court considered fatal to any suggestion that their inclusion was obviously material.

The Council's alternative argument under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that the outcome would not have been substantially different in any event, was not decided, having been rendered unnecessary by the Court's conclusions.

Gould & Anor, R (on the application of) v Devon County Council [2026] EWCA Civ 687. Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk. 2 June 2026.