## Facts

- O, a disabled individual, challenged the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s decision to reduce her care package.
- The local authority, citing budgetary constraints, modified its eligibility criteria for social care services.
- As a result, O’s level of support was reduced despite her demonstrable ongoing needs.
- O argued that the decision was unlawful because it was Wednesbury unreasonable, failing to give proper consideration to her personal circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the local authority's reduction of O's care package, motivated by budgetary constraints, was so unreasonable as to satisfy the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard.
2. Whether public bodies may rely on financial considerations to justify reductions to essential social welfare support notwithstanding individual needs.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that, while local authorities have discretion and may consider budgets, this discretion is not without limit.
- The reduction in O's care package was found to be Wednesbury unreasonable, as the authority failed to properly consider her individual needs and the specific impact on her welfare.
- The local authority's decision was quashed for being so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.

## Legal Principles

- The Wednesbury unreasonableness test sets a high threshold: a decision is unlawful if it is so outrageous in defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have reached it.
- Financial considerations cannot justify decisions that deprive individuals of essential support if they fail to meet minimum standards of reasonableness.
- Local authorities must conduct comprehensive and individualized assessments when determining social welfare entitlements; merely balancing budgets is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R (O) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC clarified that Wednesbury unreasonableness applies to social welfare decisions: local authorities must consider individual needs even under financial constraints, and decisions that do not are susceptible to judicial review and being quashed for unreasonableness.


R (O) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2012] 1 WLR 1057 (CA)