R (Hylton) v Medway Council: High Court quashes decisions refusing interim care support pending reassessment

The Administrative Court has quashed Medway Council's decisions refusing interim care support to a vulnerable litigant in person, finding that the council had unlawfully treated completion of a new needs assessment as a condition of any provision under the Care Act 2014.

Thomas Raphael KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, delivered judgement on 23 June 2026 in R (on the application of Sean Hylton) v Medway Council [2026] EWHC 1537 (Admin), quashing three decisions made between November 2025 and March 2026 and remitting the matter to Medway for lawful reconsideration.

Background

Mr Hylton has significant mental health difficulties and has been in contact with Medway's social care services since 2021. A social care assessment in November 2021, known internally as "Conversation 3", recorded eligible care and support needs and recommended direct payments of 10.5 hours weekly at approximately £290 per week. The process was never completed and his case was closed in February 2022 following disputes over medical evidence.

Contact with Medway resumed in late 2025. Mr Hylton repeatedly requested interim care under section 19(3) of the Care Act 2014, which permits a council to meet urgent needs before completing a needs assessment or eligibility determination. Medway's responses consistently indicated that no support would be provided until a new full assessment had been carried out. Where support was offered, it took the form of enablement packages and floating support through the Medway Intensive Support Team, rather than the direct payments Mr Hylton sought.

The court's analysis

The court identified three interconnected grounds on which Medway's decisions were vitiated: misapplication of the section 19(3) power, failure to take into account relevant considerations, and inadequacy of reasons.

On the statutory power, the judge held it was inconsistent with the purpose of section 19(3) for a council to refuse support unless a full assessment was first carried out. The power exists precisely to address urgent needs before or while an assessment is conducted. Medway had offered various forms of support, but its reasoning had failed to engage with whether Mr Hylton's needs were urgent and what interim provision was appropriate in the circumstances.

The 2021 assessment was also a relevant consideration that had been ignored. Although no binding care obligation had arisen from those processes (the financial assessment and direct payment procedures were never completed), "Conversation 3" remained the closest available considered evaluation of Mr Hylton's needs. Medway had effectively ruled it out of account on the basis that eligibility is not static and the case had been closed, reasoning the judge found irrational.

Medway adduced no evidence from the relevant decision-makers. A witness statement from a subsequently appointed social worker, characterised by the court as retrospective rationalisation, carried little weight.

The limits of the decision

The court did not accept that direct payments in line with the 2021 assessment were the sole justifiable response or that they constituted a necessary minimum baseline. Medway retains a wide discretion on reconsideration. The judge also refused to order backdating to 2021, concluding that no binding care or direct payment obligations had arisen from the incomplete 2021 processes.

The judge commented sharply on Medway's procedural conduct. The council had failed to file timely evidence or a skeleton argument, failed to cooperate on hearing bundles, and left Mr Hylton, a litigant in person with care needs, to prepare the court bundle himself. The judge warned that similar non-compliance might not attract the same indulgence on another occasion.

The Claimant appeared in person. Alex Lawson (instructed by Medway Council and Gravesham Borough Council Shared Legal Service) for the Defendant.