TDB, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey

His Honour Judge Bird: Introduction

1. The Claimant is a young man (now in his mid-twenties) with complex needs. He has a long-standing diagnosis of ADHD and of ASD and lives with a personality disorder. Whilst described as a “charming and likeable person” he regularly exhibits challenging behaviours and can be violent. He has particular difficulties with some activities of daily living and with social interaction. This claim is about how he will be supported in the future. HLDP

2. Once the Claimant reached the age of 18, he potentially came under the remit of the Haringey Learning Disability Partnership (“HLDP”), an integrated health and social care resource for adults with learning disabilities. It is responsible for providing a holistic range of health and social care including psychiatry, nursing, psychology, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. From time to time the Claimant has been able to access HLDP’s services. It is clear that during those periods, the health and social care assistance provided by HLDP has been of great benefit to him.

3. The published eligibility criteria for HLDP support (which I deal with below) are derived from the formal description of the services it offers, namely that it “supports people with a diagnosed learning disability who are aged 18 plus and ordinarily resident in Haringey”. The 2019 Assessment

4. The Claimant was first assessed to determine if he was eligible to use HLDP services in 2019. An important aspect of the assessment was whether the Claimant had a learning disability. He was referred to Dr Maxime Kikoler, who conducted a cognitive assessment on 9 May 2019. Dr Kikoler concluded: “ The difficulties [he] experiences, across cognitive, language, social and behavioural domains, are more representative of an individual who has experienced significant developmental trauma and not someone with a learning disability. Whilst [the claimant] currently requires support to complete some of his activities of daily living, described in more detail in the Care Act Adults assessment document, it has been demonstrated that with the appropriate support and information delivery [he] is able to learn skills and attain academic achievement that are above a level we would expect in someone with a learning disability . Additionally, difficulties with certain daily living skills are more likely related to [the claimant’s] early experiences of abuse, anxiety, and fine motor skill difficulties, and not due to a learning disability. Therefore, he presents as someone with a learning difficulty presentation not disability. As such [the claimant] does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of learning disability and it is not eligible to receive specialist support from the Haringey Learning Disability Partnership ” (emphasis added). The 2020 Assessment

5. The Claimant underwent a further assessment in January 2020. This assessment did not directly address eligibility for HLDP. It was carried out by the Northwest London Forensic Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service for the Crown Court because the Claimant had been charged with a minor criminal offence. It is in the form of a report verified by a statement of truth. Its conclusion was that he fulfilled the criteria for “mild learning disability.” I was told that as a result of this assessment, the Claimant was considered eligible for HLDP services. The 2021 Assessment

6. The Claimant was assessed by the Black Country Healthcare NHS Trust when he was at school in their area. I have seen a letter from the Trust dated 23 August 2021 which summarises its interactions with the Claimant. It concludes he has a “borderline learning disability.” The following appears from the letter: a. The Claimant was screened by a consultant psychiatrist and a consultant psychologist specialising in learning disabilities in July 2020. He was found to be unsuitable to receive services from the Black Country learning disabilities community specialist health services team. b. He was referred again and an “extended period of assessment” was offered. Those dealing with the assessment plainly felt that the issue of eligibility for specialist services was nuanced: “ rather than becoming embroiled in the issue of a diagnosis of a learning disability the pertinent issue seems to be with regards to which service would be most appropriate to meet [the Claimant's] needs .” (emphasis added). c. The recommendation was expressed in these terms: “ [He] has been observed to be functioning above the level of what we would expect of someone with a learning disability , certainly at a level which would enable him (perhaps with minimal reasonable adjustment) to access mainstream services. Based on the information above we have decided that [he] does not meet the criteria to access specialist learning disability services, and we are confident that his needs would be best met by accessing the autism and ADHD service within the trust. ” (emphasis added). Is the Claimant eligible for HLDP? The 2024 assessment and review

7. On 9 May 2024 at a meeting of the Defendant’s Adult Social Care department and HLDP it was decided that the Claimant was (again) no longer eligible to receive HLDP services. Dr Emily Tomlinson, a principal clinical psychologist with HLDP, Dr Laura Davis, a psychiatrist and others including Patience Boafo were present. The meeting dealt with three things. First, previous assessments were reviewed. The meeting expressed the view that “all assessments [with one exception] have concluded that [the Claimant] does not meet criteria for learning disability.” Secondly, it looked at how the Claimant’s suitability for specialist learning disability services had been dealt with by others. It was noted that “Assessments by Adult LD services (HLDP and Black Country) identify that a specialist LD service is not the appropriate service to meet [his] needs.” Thirdly, it went on to consider the Claimant’s care needs. The importance of the following matters was highlighted: a. A referral to the forensic learning disability and autism service, b. Ensuring that the Claimant was provided with appropriate support. Such support would not be provided for by generic service providers instead providers who could meet the needs of autistic adults would be required. c. The Claimant and his family knowing how to access mental health services.

8. The May decision was communicated to the Claimant and his parents by letter of 10 June 2024. In the letter, the Claimant was described as having “borderline learning disability.” The letter referred to the assessment carried out by Dr Kikoler and the Black Country assessment from August 2021.

9. The recommendation was that the Claimant no longer required “health input from a specialist learning disability team.” Echoing the conclusion reached in other assessments, the letter included the following: “ whilst clarity on whether [the Claimant] has a learning disability is important, the key issue is which service will best meet [the Claimant’s] current needs . National guidance emphasises that those that can access mainstream health services should be supported to do so and that learning disability services should be offered for those that are unable to access these. To date [the Claimant] has accessed mainstream health services, he is functioning at a higher level than people who access learning disability teams and with reasonable adjustments should therefore be supported to continue to engage with mainstream health services.” (emphasis added).

10. The Claimant’s parents (who are fearsome, tireless, and effective advocates on his behalf) raised a complaint about the content of the letter and the result of the May meeting. They pointed out that the Claimant had never successfully accessed mainstream health services and that he had regularly been assessed to have a learning disability. The HLDP treated the complaint as a request for reconsideration of the decision that the Claimant did not require health input from HLDP. In an e-mail dated 13 September 2024, HLDP explained it had reconsidered the matter and: “ following extensive discussions and reviews of previous evaluations and assessments, the collective agreement among the clinicians is that an alternative to the learning disability team would be more appropriate to address and manage the specific requirements of your son. This conclusion was reached after careful consideration of all pertinent information. The recommendation is for your son to receive support tailored to his health needs, which his allocated social worker will assist in coordinating .”

11. As to access to mainstream medical services, HLDP noted that there are several ways to support the Claimant with health appointments. These include local advocacy services and assistance provided by carers or support workers. Response to the Assessment and Review

12. Unsatisfied with the response, the Claimant (through his parents) instructed TV Edwards, solicitors. They wrote to the Defendant on 7 October 2024. They suggested with some force, that his expulsion from HLDP was premature and that a thorough needs assessment was required. The Defendant was invited to undertake such an assessment together with an assessment of his EHCP (formerly Statement of Special Educational Needs) and a review of his pathway plan. It was suggested that there would need to be “ specialist input from a psychologist, from a learning disability specialist and an autism specialist .” The letter continued, once the assessment had been done “ there needs to be consideration how all of his needs can be met. It is only once the services he needs have been identified, that the team able to provide these services (e.g. whether adult social care or HLDP) can be identified. ” In response, the Defendant pointed out that whilst the Claimant’s needs would be assessed and planned in a joined-up way, each relevant service would need to complete its own assessment so that there would not be one single joint assessment document. It explained that a Care Act assessment was underway. The Care Act Assessment

13. The Care Act assessment was completed on 13th December 2024, having been commenced on the 12th April 2024. It followed an in-person assessment and discussion attended by the Claimant, his adoptive mother, his social worker Patience Boafo, and a number of service providers. At the time the Claimant was living in a specialist placement in Enfield with care provided by DHR. The placement is described as a “specialist forensic placement” and it is noted that DHR “are providing the Claimant with high level support to manage his needs and activities of daily living.” The evidence is that he receives 40 hours per week of support. It was noted that he has “the potential to live independently with reduced support, but he would require some guidance around best care in autism.”

14. The recommendations set out in the report are as follows: a. the Claimant was to be linked by the young adults’ team with another young person to engage in recreational activities. b. The support he was provided with in Enfield was to continue and it was acknowledged that he “will require high level of support to manage his activities of daily living” c. He will need continuous support to help manage his behavioural problems and to prevent deterioration. Again, the support he was then receiving in Enfield would continue and facilitate a psychology referral through his GP. d. He will also need high level specialist input to manage his autism and sexual relationships. Once again the Enfield providers were to make a psychology referral to the Claimant’s GP. e. The Enfield providers should also make a psychiatric referral to enable the Claimant’s ADHD medication to be reviewed. f. Steps were to be taken in respect of the EHCP in particular that the social worker and personal advisor would liaise with Enfield to see if a suitable further educational placement could be located.

15. The assessment notes that the Claimant “lacks capacity in understanding relationships/sexual relationships and boundaries of relationships.” It appears that that information was provided to the Defendant by DHR (the Claimant’s care provider) by email on 15 October 2024.

16. It deals with the Claimant’s learning issues in a number of places. It is not necessary to refer to every mention of learning issues, and is sufficient to note these points: a. under the heading “next steps” it refers to the 9 May 2024 meeting in this way: “ representatives from psychology, psychiatry, nursing and social work disciplines attended and was made aware of the decision of the HLDP that [the Claimant] does not have a learning disability and therefore is not able to receive support through HLDP ” b. It refers under the same heading to an e-mail of 22 November 2024 from NHS North Central London ICB stating that the Claimant’s GP record notes he has a learning difficulty not a learning disability. I have not seen those notes.

17. The assessment was conducted by Patience Boafo, a qualified social worker. Her evidence includes the following: “Part of what I am trained to do, and regularly do, is carry out assessments of people with learning disabilities, mental health issues, and autism and decide if they meet the criteria under the Care Act 2014 ”

18. Marianne Hernandez, a social worker from the adult’s assessment team was also involved. Part of the aim of the assessment was to afford a smooth transition into the adult care. The Defendant’s position is that both social workers were qualified to prepare the assessment and that there was no need for any further professional input. The Challenge

19. The Claimant, acting by his litigation friend, challenges the lawfulness of the Care Act assessment on three grounds. Permission was granted on all grounds by Melanie Plimmer, President of the FTIAC sitting as a Judge of this Court.

20. The grounds advanced are: a. First, that the assessment was conducted unlawfully in that it was prepared contrary to the requirements of both Reg.5 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 Regulations”) and Autism Statutory Guidance. In support of this ground, the Claimant advances 3 arguments: first, it is said that the social workers who conducted the assessment did not have the requisite “skills, knowledge and competence” and appropriate training to carry out the assessment. Secondly, it is said (because neither social worker had the relevant experience or expertise) the Defendant came under a duty to consult an expert in autism, and a psychologist or psychiatrist with a specialism in issues of capacity relating to sexual relations. Thirdly, there ought to have been a capacity assessment. The Claimant places particular reliance on his solicitor’s letter of 7 October 2024. b. Ground 2 is an irrationality challenge aimed at three findings. First, what is described as the “conclusion” that the Claimant has a learning difficulty rather than a learning disability. Secondly, a reference in the assessment to a need for “physical support – personal care support” and thirdly, what the Claimant understands to be the conclusion that he could access mainstream healthcare services without support. c. Ground 3 is a policy challenge comprising 2 limbs. The broad argument is that the Defendant has an inflexible policy to exclude those with additional needs from HLDP based only the diagnostic criteria used to identify a learning disability. To pursue that argument the Claimant accepts I need to have found that it actually applied the policy when carrying out the assessment. The narrow argument is that the Defendant treated the issue of access to HLDP as determined and closed, whereas it should have considered, as part of the care plan, recommending a reconsideration of eligibility. The Policy

21. The policy the Defendant is said to have inflexibly applied, is derived from an agreement made under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 by the Defendant, the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, the Whittington Health NHS Trust, and North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group. Paragraph 1.2.7 of the first schedule to the agreement provides that the HDLP “ supports people with a diagnosed learning disability who are aged 18 plus and ordinarily resident in Haringey ”. Statute and Guidance

22. There is no dispute that the Defendant was under a duty to undertake a needs assessment or that the Claimant’s needs meet the relevant eligibility criteria. When carrying out a needs assessment a local authority is obliged to follow statutory guidance ( section 78 of the Care Act 2014 ) and must comply with the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014. 78 Guidance, etc. (1) A local authority must act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State in the exercise of functions given to it by this Part or by regulations under this Part. ……

23. The relevant parts of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014/2827: 3.— Assessment – general requirements (1) A local authority must carry out an assessment in a manner which— (a) is appropriate and proportionate to the needs and circumstances of the individual to whom it relates; and (b) ensures that the individual is able to participate in the process as effectively as possible. (2) In seeking to ensure that an assessment is carried out in an appropriate and proportionate manner, a local authority must have regard to— (a) the wishes and preferences of the individual to whom it relates; (b) the outcome the individual seeks from the assessment; and (c) the severity and overall extent of the individual's needs. …… 5.— Training, expertise, and consultation (1) A local authority must ensure that any person (other than in the case of a supported self-assessment, the individual to whom it relates) carrying out an assessment— (a) has the skills, knowledge, and competence to carry out the assessment in question; and (b) is appropriately trained. (2) A local authority carrying out an assessment must consult a person who has expertise in relation to the condition or other circumstances of the individual whose needs are being assessed in any case where it considers that the needs of the individual concerned require it to do so. (3) Such consultation may take place before, or during, the carrying out of the assessment.

24. Statutory guidance for local authorities and NHS organisation to support implementation of the adult autism strategy notes: 1.4. In line with the 2010 statutory guidance, local authorities should be providing general autism awareness to all frontline staff in contact with adults with autism, so that staff are able to identify potential signs of autism and understand how to make reasonable adjustments in their behaviour and communication. In addition to this, local authorities are expected to have made good progress on developing and providing specialist training for those in roles that have a direct impact on and make decisions about the lives of adults with autism, including those conducting needs assessments. This expectation remains central to this updated statutory guidance. Local Authorities must: • Ensure that any person carrying out a needs assessment under the Care Act 2014 has the skills, knowledge, and competence to carry out the assessment in question and is appropriately trained. Where the assessor does not have experience in the condition, the local authority must ensure that a person with that expertise is ,consulted.

25. The Claimant drew large sections of care and support statutory guidance to my attention. Some of those effectively repeat and rephrase statutory obligations. I have considered paragraphs 6.31, 6.32, 6.42, 6.85 to 6.90 and section 10.63 and 10.64. Section 6 deals with “assessment and eligibility” and the relevant part of section 10 deals with “planning for people who lack capacity”. I need not set out those paragraphs in full. Their content (insofar as it adds to what I have already set out) can be summarised as follows: a. The local authority should ensure the person whose needs are being assessed can “engage effectively in the assessment process.” If there are no concerns about capacity, it may be sufficient to involve “somebody who can assist the adult in engaging with the process and helping them to articulate their preferred outcomes and needs as early as possible.” (6.31) b. Where there is concern about a person’s capacity to make a specific decision, even after appropriate support has been offered, a capacity assessment should be carried out. (6.32 and 10.63) c. Local authorities must have regard to the “wishes and preferences and desired outcomes” of the person being assessed and the severity and overall extent of the person’s needs (a person with more complex needs will need a more detailed assessment) (6.42). d. Local authorities must ensure that assessors are appropriately trained and competent to assess needs. “As part of maintaining their registration, social workers and occupational therapists are required to evidence their Continuing Professional Development” (6.86) e. When assessing “particularly complex or multiple needs,” an assessor may require the support of an expert to carry out the assessment. The need for additional expertise must be considered “on a case-by-case basis”.(6.87) f. The expert may be “somebody who, either through training or experience, has acquired knowledge or skill of the particular condition or circumstance.” (6.88) g. Local authorities should make basic autism training available for all staff working in health and social care develop or provide specialist training for those in roles that have a direct impact on access to services for adults with autism include quality autism awareness training within general equality and diversity training programmes across public services (6.89) h. Where an assessor does not have experience in a particular condition (such as autism), they must consult someone with relevant experience. (6.90) Authorities

26. Little time was spent on reported decisions. That is because, for the most part, the principles I am to apply were not in issue. I take the following not to be in issue: a. To establish a decision was irrational, the Claimant needs to show “ a decision which does not add up – in which, in other words, there is an error of reasoning which robs the decision of logic ” (paragraph 13 R v The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin [1998] 1 PLR 1.) b. The fact that a policy is expressed in rigid terms does not mean it is inflexible and so unlawful. What matters is the application of the policy. It is enough for the policy maker to show that it considers the policy flexibly (paragraph 17 of Regina (West Berkshire District Council and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 441 )

27. There was some argument about the relevance of R (on the application of Irenechild) v Lambeth [2007] EWCA Civ 234 . The authority was cited as guidance on the correct approach to take in judicial review proceedings to a social worker’s report. At first instance the Judge had found that the social worker had failed to follow statutory guidelines by reason of a failure to assess certain risks. Lady Justice Hallett (with whom the others member of the Court agreed) said (at paragraph 57): “With great respect, I disagree. I see considerable force in Mr Béar's argument that Mr Drabble's challenge to the assessment on this ground took an overly critical approach to the assessment. Again, one must always bear in mind the context of an assessment of this kind. It is an assessment prepared by a social worker for his or her employers. It is not a final determination of a legal dispute by a lawyer which may be subjected to overzealous textual analysis. Courts must be wary, in my view, of expecting so much of hard-pressed social workers that we risk taking them away, unnecessarily, from their front-line duties.”

28. I accept the Claimant’s point that the decision pre-dates the Care Act 2014 . Nonetheless, in my judgment, the guidance given remains relevant. A search of Westlaw reveals that Fordham J recently cited the case in The King (on the application of Blz) v Leeds City Council and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin) in support of the proposition that “A Needs Assessment [under the Care Act 2014 ] is not a lawyer's determination of a dispute and should not be subjected to over-zealous textual analysis”.

29. Against this background I turn to consider the grounds. The first ground

30. I accept the Claimant’s letter of 7 October 2024 requested that the assessment “… include specialist input from a psychologist, from a learning disability specialist and an autism specialist ”. I do not accept that “ the Defendant was required either to adhere to the request or provide adequate reasons for declining to do so .” At its highest, the 7 October 2024 letter might be taken as an expression of the Claimant’s “ wishes and preferences ”. If that is right, the Defendant needed only to “ have regard ” to them when carrying out the assessment.

31. The question of who needs to be involved in the assessment remains a matter for the judgment of the Defendant generally, and in particular for the professional judgment of the assessors. The obligation to involve others arises “ where it considers that the needs of the individual concerned require it to do so .” Even in cases of “ particularly complex or multiple needs ,” the Defendant must still consider if the input of other is “ required .” In my judgment the evidence falls far short of allowing me to conclude that the assessment was unlawful because the input of others was “ required .”

32. Insofar as the challenge amounts to a rationality challenge (as the Defendant characterised it) it cannot in my judgment be said that the decisions “do not add up” so that they reveal in each case an error of reasoning which robs them of logic. Social workers are highly trained, have responsibilities to keep their training up to date as a condition of continued registration and, in the present case, have a good deal of experience. The context of the assessment was that the Claimant was well known to HDLP, to the Defendant and to other bodies outside the Defendant. Taking these factors into account, I am satisfied that the decision to proceed without further input was not irrational.

33. There is no suggestion (and certainly no evidence) that the Defendant has failed to implement the national adult autism strategy or that it had failed to provide (as it must) “general autism awareness to all frontline staff” and “specialist training for those conducting needs assessments.” Patience Boafo’s evidence confirms that she has received appropriate training and has experience of carrying out needs assessments for those with autism. The assertions that she lacked the “skills, knowledge and competence” to conduct the assessment and that other expertise was required, appears to be based on an assumption that anyone with the Claimant’s presentation would need specialist input. I do not accept that. It is clear from the guidance that the approach is always fact specific.

34. As to capacity, the assessors proceeded on the basis that the Claimant lacked capacity in respect of the formation and maintenance of healthy sexual relationships. There was no suggestion at all that the Claimant lacked capacity in any other area (and linked to that, social media use in respect of which I have seen a capacity assessment dated 20 May 2020). None of the medical professionals who have assessed him have expressed any concern about capacity and each appears to have been confident that the Claimant was well supported to make relevant decisions.

35. Nothing in the assessment I am concerned with appears to have triggered any concern about capacity. The report notes that the Claimant sat between Natalie, one of his carers and his mother (referred to as DDB) and “ asked them to advocate on his behalf .” It is clear from the assessment that they performed that task with care. No one at the meeting raised any concerns and there are some indications that the Claimant engaged appropriately. He is entitled to the important presumption of capacity. I have seen nothing to suggest that there was any cause for concern about the Claimant’s capacity to make a specific decision after appropriate support has been offered. The Defendant was therefore in my judgment entitled to proceed without a capacity assessment. Ground 2

36. Ground 2 is a pure irrationality challenge. I will deal with the impugned decisions in this order: the conclusion in respect of “physical support needs;” the conclusion of the extent of the Claimant’s learning issues and the conclusion in respect of the Claimant’s ability to access mainstream health care.

37. In my judgment it is plain, reading the assessment as a whole, that the reference to the Claimant having “physical support needs” is not a conclusion at all. Reading the report as a whole, the reasons for the Claimant’s need for care are plain. They are not related to physical issues. The reference to physical support needs is wholly irrelevant to the outcome of the report.

38. It is also plain in my judgment that the Defendant did not reach its own decision on the extent of the Claimant’s learning issues. The assessors relied on the professional views of others who were qualified to express the view. In submissions, it was suggested that the Defendant at least “endorsed” the decision that the Claimant had a learning difficulty. I do not accept that submission. I am satisfied that the Defendant (through the assessors) simply took the opinion of those qualified to give it and applied it. It was plainly not irrational for the assessors to do so. It was suggested that the Defendant should have required that the Claimant undertake further examination or consideration. I reject that submission. I accept it would have been possible for the Defendant to ask for a re-assessment, but it is far from clear why they would have done so.

39. Finally, I deal with access to healthcare services. The Claimant prayed in aid of this submission, the fact that the Claimant had in fact not been able to access any health services since the assessment. Whilst that (as a fact) is of concern, it is not material to the question before me. The lawfulness of the decision must be assessed at the time it was made, and in light of the facts and matters known to the decision maker at the time. In any event, on a proper reading, the report proceeded on the basis that the Claimant would require support to access mainstream services. It was not suggested that he could do so without help and assistance. This approach is consistent with the conclusions expressed by Dr Kikoler in 2019, the Black Country NHS Trust in its letter of 23 August 2021 and the Defendant’s letter of 10 June 2024. There is a broad measure of agreement between the experts that the Claimant was able to function at a level higher than that to be expected of someone with a learning disability. The decision that the Claimant could access mainstream services with help was plainly not irrational. Ground 3

40. The first, and broader aspect of ground 3 must in my judgment fail for a number of reasons. First, the Defendant was not applying the policy when it conducted the assessment. It did not make the decision to exclude the Claimant from HLDP, that decision had already been taken in May 2024. Secondly, it is clear that the Defendant’s approach took a flexible approach to the policy. That flexibility is plain from all of the reports I have seen which address eligibility (even those from the Black Country, which are not examples of the Defendant’s flexibility, but are examples of a common approach). The Defendant’s flexible approach is best shown by the June 2024 letter from Dr Tomlinson. She made it clear that the real question was where could the Claimant’s needs best be met, not whether he had a particular diagnosis.

41. The second limb of ground 3 was raised for the first time at the hearing. There was no objection from the Defendant, and I am prepared to deal with the argument. However, this approach should not be seen by the Claimant as a slackening of the need for procedural rigour (including not raising arguments which are not clearly foreshadowed).

42. The problem with the second part of ground 3 is that, on the findings I have made, there was no sensible basis on which the Defendant could have been expected to consider a referral back to HLDP for a fresh assessment. Conclusion

43. For all of these reasons, the claim is dismissed.

44. In conclusion, no matter what the precise extent of the Claimant’s learning issues is, he has been shown to function at a higher level than those with learning disabilities. That being the case it seems clear that it is in his best interests to receive mainstream, rather than specialist, care. He has shown himself able to achieve a great deal if he has the appropriate support. That is in my judgment a matter for celebration.

45. I am grateful to counsel for their helpful and focussed submissions.