Category:Community care
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Funding holidays R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2021] EWHC 3368 (Admin) — The council had decided no longer to fund the family holidays of BG and KG (who have autism and learning disability) on the basis that it was no longer including holiday travel and accommodation costs in personal budgets. The High Court quashed this decision, holding that the council had the power to provide financial support for recreational activity and holidays under s18 Care Act 2014, and ordered a fresh needs assessment. | 2022‑08‑04 20:32:49 | 2021 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Funding holidays R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1047 — The council had decided no longer to fund the family holidays of BG and KG (who have autism and learning disability) on the basis that it was no longer including holiday travel and accommodation costs in personal budgets. The High Court quashed this decision, holding that the council had the power to provide financial support for recreational activity and holidays under section 18 Care Act 2014, and ordered a fresh needs assessment. The council appealed but was unsuccessful. | 2022‑08‑04 20:28:17 | 2022 cases, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Ordinary residence and s117 R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC [2021] EWCA Civ 1957 — JG was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) Area 1's duty subsists until it comes to an end by a s117(2) decision that the patient "is no longer in need" of aftercare services (ordinary residence in area 2 when subsequently detained makes no difference); there had been no such decision so the duty continued throughout both the second period of detention and beyond. (2) Obiter, by the ordinary meaning of "ordinarily resident" and under the Shah test JG was ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before the second detention, and there was nothing in subsequent caselaw (including Cornwall) or the Care Act 2014 amendments (including the change from "resident" to "ordinarily resident") justifying a different conclusion. | 2022‑01‑12 11:37:52 | 2021 cases, After-care, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Ordinary residence and s117 R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC [2021] EWHC 682 (Admin) — The patient was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The DHSC argued that Worcestershire retained s117 responsibility throughout, based on three propositions: (a) the patient remains ordinarily resident in Area 1, applying R (Cornwall Council v SSH [2015] UKSC 46; (b) in the alternative, "immediately before being detained" in s117 means "immediately before being first detained"; (c) in the further alternative, Area 1's duty continued throughout the second detention. The High Court rejected all three propositions (in relation to the third, noting that a s117 duty continues until a s117(2) decision, even during a second detention, but that the continuation does not affect the position upon leaving hospital). | 2021‑03‑23 00:10:36 | 2021 cases
|
| * Private law restitution claim between public bodies Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire CCG [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) — The local authority successfully brought a private law claim in restitution against the CCG to recover accommodation and care costs of JD, a young autistic man, on the basis that the CCG had made an error of public law when it twice declined to assess whether JR was eligible for NHS care. | 2020‑12‑28 21:56:13 | 2020 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Complaint about community care delay Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (17 012 839a) [2019] MHLO 44 (LGSCO) — LGSCO's summary: "The Ombudsmen do not consider Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust delayed providing support for Mrs X’s mental health needs. We have not found fault with the way the Council decided what support she needed. The Ombudsmen consider Derbyshire County Council delayed completing Mr X’s carer assessment and should have considered carrying out an integrated assessment with Mrs X. However, it has remedied the distress Mr X suffered." | 2019‑08‑30 20:13:00 | 2019 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2019 cases
|
| * Failure to carry out carer's assessment Rotherham Doncaster & South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (18 010 101a) [2019] MHLO 43 (LGSCO) — LGSCO's summary of decision: "The Trust and Council were at fault in not carrying out a carer’s assessment and not involving Mrs S during her husband’s period of treatment. There was also fault in record-keeping and delays in responding to the complaint. These failings caused an injustice to Mrs S as she lost the opportunity for additional support and is likely to have suffered additional distress. The Trust and Council have already taken action to address these failings and improve processes. The Trust and Council have agreed to pay Mrs S financial redress and the Trust has agreed to monitor and report on improvements in its complaints handling." | 2019‑08‑22 23:00:08 | 2019 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2019 cases
|
| * Funding dispute R (Western Health and Social Care Trust) v Secretary of State for Health [2018] NIQB 67 — "The impugned determination is that of the [Secretary of State for Health of England and Wales] to the effect that a lady whom I shall describe as CM (aged 32 years) is 'ordinarily resident' in Northern Ireland and has been thus since 2009, with the result that the care management and funding responsibilities for her have fallen on the Trust, rather than [the London Borough of Enfield], since that date. In very brief compass, lying at the heart of this challenge is a funding dispute between the Trust and Enfield." | 2018‑11‑23 14:24:37 | 2018 cases
|
| * Needs assessment; accommodation change R (JF) v London Borough of Merton [2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin) — "The Claimant has the benefit of anonymity and will be referred to as JF. He has Autism Spectrum Disorder and severe learning difficulties. As a result, he requires adult residential care with specialist support. ... The Claimant relies upon two grounds of review, contending that: (i) LBM failed to undertake a lawful assessment of his needs in breach of statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 and associated Regulations, namely the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 SI 2827, and the Care and Support (Choice of Accommodation) Regulations 2014 SI 2670. (ii) LBM has unlawfully decided to change or to propose to change his accommodation from the David Lewis College in Cheshire, where he has resided since 2012 to Aspen Lodge in Sussex, a residence run by Sussex Health Care. The Claimant contends that LBM has based its decision to prefer the Lodge unlawfully and predominantly upon a Pre-Admission Assessment dated 26 February 2016 and prepared by the Lodge. That document contains the conclusion that the Lodge is suitable and can adequately meet JF's needs. The Claimant alleges that it is an inadequate basis for moving him from his current accommodation." | 2017‑07‑04 22:52:00 | 2017 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Ordinary residence R (Cornwall Council v SSH [2015] UKSC 46 — "PH has severe physical and learning disabilities and is without speech. He lacks capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he has received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was living with foster parents in South Gloucestershire. Since then he has lived in two care homes in the Somerset area. There is no dispute about his entitlement to that support, initially under the Children Act 1989, and since his majority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The issue is: which authority should be responsible? This depends, under sections 24(1) and (5) of the 1948 Act, on, where immediately before his placement in Somerset, he was "ordinarily resident". There are three possible contenders: Wiltshire, as the authority for the area where he was living with his family when he first went into care, and which remained responsible for him under the 1948 Act; Cornwall, where his family have lived since 1991; or South Gloucestershire, where he lived with his foster parents from the age of four until his move to Somerset. ... Although none of the other authorities has argued that Wiltshire should be responsible, the court indicated at the beginning of the hearing that this possibility should not be excluded from consideration. ... In a case where the person concerned was at the relevant time living in accommodation in which he had been placed by a local authority under the 1989 Act, it would be artificial to ignore the nature of such a placement in that parallel statutory context. He was living for the time being in a place determined, not by his own settled intention, but by the responsible local authority solely for the purpose of fulfilling its statutory duties. In other words, it would be wrong to interpret section 24 of the 1948 Act so as to regard PH as having been ordinarily resident in South Gloucestershire by reason of a form of residence whose legal characteristics are to be found in the provisions of the 1989 Act. Since one of the characteristics of that placement is that it did not affect his ordinary residence under the statutory scheme, it would create an unnecessary and avoidable mismatch to treat the placement as having had that effect when it came to the transition in his care arrangements on his 18th birthday. On this analysis it follows that PH's placement in South Gloucestershire by Wiltshire is not to be regarded as bringing about a change in his ordinary residence. Throughout the period until he reached 18 he remained continuously where he was placed by Wiltshire, under an arrangement made and paid for by them. For fiscal and administrative purposes his ordinary residence continued to be in their area, regardless of where they determined that he should live. It may seem harsh to Wiltshire to have to retain indefinite responsibility for a person who left the area many years ago. But against that there are advantages for the subject in continuity of planning and financial responsibility. As between different authorities, an element of arbitrariness and "swings and roundabouts" may be unavoidable." | 2015‑08‑07 23:06:04 | 2015 cases, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| R (Kent CC) v SSH [2015] EWCA Civ 81, [2015] MHLO 13 — "This case concerns the question of which of a number of local authorities should be responsible for funding the residential accommodation of a disabled adult pursuant to section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. In particular, it concerns the proper construction of section 24(5) which deems a person to be ordinarily resident in a local authority area when he is in fact ordinarily resident elsewhere." | 2015‑02‑12 23:03:10 | 2015 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWCA Civ 1350, [2014] MHLO 134 — This appeal by Aster Healthcare was unsuccessful. | 2014‑12‑31 15:42:31 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWHC 77 (QB), [2014] MHLO 133 — "This is an appeal from the decision ... to grant summary judgment to the Claimant in a claim against the Estate of the late Mr Mohammed Shafi for outstanding care home fees. It raises interesting and important issues about the relationship between section 7 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provisions of Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, Part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and related statutes, regulations and guidance that concern the obligations or powers of a local authority to provide residential accommodation and care services for persons who by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them. ... The total amount claimed is £62,199.94. The key issue is who, if anyone, is legally liable for payment of fees to the Claimant? There are only two candidates; the Estate of the late Mr Shafi (represented by his wife), and Brent." | 2014‑12‑31 15:38:07 | 2014 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Whapples) v Birmingham CCG [2014] EWHC 2647 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 57 — "The Claimant has extremely severe physical symptoms stemming, so the balance of the available medical evidence indicates, from post traumatic stress disorder arising from traumatic events in her past, including abuse during childhood. She is seeking a ruling from this court to the effect that the Defendant has an obligation under section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to provide her with accommodation, as part of the health care package with which it should provide her free of charge under the NHS. ... The legal issue of principle which the court is invited to determine on the present application is whether the Claimant has a right to provision of accommodation suitable to meet her needs as part of the free, non-means tested care which she receives from the NHS or whether her accommodation should be provided by one or other of these alternative routes, in the form of means tested welfare benefits." | 2014‑08‑01 09:56:56 | 2014 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (ZYN) v Walsall MBC [2014] EWHC 1918 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 40 — "The issue raised by this case is whether capital derived from a personal injury settlement which is managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection must be disregarded by a local authority when deciding whether the injured person can be required to contribute to the cost of care services which he or she receives. ... For the reasons given, I find that the Council's policy on charging for the cost of social care services is unlawful insofar as it takes account of any of the capital derived from the claimant's personal injury settlement." | 2014‑06‑12 22:24:03 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404, [2014] MHLO 18 — "This is an appeal about the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services for citizens in its area and then decides to close a day centre. LH is 63 years old, has a learning disability, has been assessed as having substantial care needs and has been using the services of Hartleys Day Centre in Shrewsbury. Shropshire Council has decided to close that day centre as a result of its re-thinking of day centre care in the county; that re-thinking is itself a result partly of budgetary constraints and partly of encouragement from central Government to give disabled people their own personalised budget for spending in relation to their disability. The Council contends that it consulted generally about the new system which it brought in and made clear that some day centres would close; LH contends by JL (her litigation friend and sister) that LH and others should have been consulted in relation to the closure of Hartleys itself before it occurred. There is also an allegation of failure to comply with the statutory Public Sector Equality Duty as contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. ... my own conclusion is that the omission to consult the users and relatives on the closure of Hartleys Day Centre before it was decided to close it was indeed unlawful. ... If I had held that the Council had complied with their duty to consult at common law, I would not have held that there was a breach of the statutory duty under the Equality Act. ... I would therefore allow this appeal and (subject to any written observations from the parties on the terms of the declaration before hand down) formally declare that, in breach of its common law duty, the Council failed to consult the users of Hartleys Day Centre and their carers before deciding to close the centre." | 2014‑04‑07 14:55:36 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Ordinary residence R (Cornwall Council) v SSH [2014] EWCA Civ 12 — (1) In deciding the ordinary residence of an adult lacking capacity the Secretary of State had erred in applying 'test 1' from the Vale case (that a person who is so severely handicapped as to be totally dependent upon a parent or guardian in the same position as a small child and his ordinary residence is that of his parents or guardian because that is his base). (2) Instead, the words 'ordinary residence' should, unless the context indicates otherwise, be given their ordinary and natural meaning. (3) There is much to be said for the court adopting in the context of severely incapacitated adults a test of ordinary residence similar to the test of habitual residence adopted for dependent children in Re A (namely where he is integrated into a social and family environment). (3) On the facts, the person was ordinarily resident in South Gloucestershire (where he lived) rather than Cornwall (where his parents lived). | 2014‑03‑24 20:38:20 | 2014 cases, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2014 cases
|
| SL v Westminster City Council [2013] UKSC 27, [2013] MHLO 45 — "The short issue raised by this appeal is whether the respondent (SL), a failed asylum-seeker, was at the relevant time in need of 'care and attention', requiring the provision of accommodation by the local authority under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948. Burnett J decided that he was not, but that decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal ... I consider that Burnett J reached the right result for substantially the right reasons." | 2013‑05‑11 13:32:25 | 2013 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Chatting) v Viridian Housing [2012] EWHC 3595 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 177 — "This litigation arises out of what may be loosely called the reorganisation by Viridian Housing, the charity which owns the premises, of the arrangements for the provision of care to residents of the building in which Miss Chatting lives. ... On behalf of Viridian Housing, Mr Christopher Baker urged upon me that the relief sought against his client – namely, declarations that in transferring responsibility for Miss Chatting's care to another organisation Viridian were in breach of a compromise agreement made in earlier litigation and had infringed article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – was academic and should not in any event be granted. On behalf of Miss Chatting Mr Stephen Cragg pursued claims for those declarations, as well as a declaration that Wandsworth Borough Council had acted unlawfully in its management of the transfer of Miss Chatting's care, in that it had failed to ensure that care was provided to her in a way that meets her assessed needs and takes into account her best interests. At the hearing Mr Cragg focussed his case against Wandsworth as being that it had failed to act in Miss Chatting's best interests as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For the Borough Council, Ms Elisabeth Laing QC resisted Mr Cragg's claim and also sought a ruling on two further issues of interpretation of the compromise agreement." | 2013‑03‑28 12:07:30 | 2012 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Ordinary residence R (Cornwall Council) v SSH [2012] EWHC 3739 (Admin) — PH was a young man born with significant learning and physical disabilities. The Secretary of State decided that when he turned 18 he was ordinarily resident under the NAA 1948 in Cornwall, where his parents lived, despite his physical presence elsewhere. The court held that the Secretary of State had lawfully applied the test in Vale relevant to a person who is so severely handicapped as to be totally dependent upon a parent or guardian (termed 'test 1' in the guidance), which states that such a person is in the same position as a small child and his ordinary residence is that of his parents or guardian because that is his base. | 2013‑01‑10 20:46:23 | 2012 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2012 cases
|
| R (Okil) v LB Southwark [2012] EWHC 1202 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 122 — Community care case with immigration and mental health background. | 2012‑12‑17 00:36:11 | 2012 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Davis v West Sussex County Council [2012] EWHC 2152 (QB), [2012] MHLO 83 — At a safeguarding vulnerable adults case conference the local authority determined that certain allegations of abuse at a care home were substantiated or inconclusive, made recommendations, and decided to refer three members of staff to their professional bodies. The claimants sought judicial review of the decisions (and of a subsequent Default Notice, although this was not pursued). (1) The local authority's procedure was unfair, in breach of the rules of natural justice, its own guidance (based on government guidance), and legitimate expectations - a precis cannot do justice to how disgraceful the procedure was. (2) Two defences, arguing that no public law rights arose, failed: (a) there was no respect in which the duty to protect vulnerable adults conflicted with the less pressing obligation to treat other parties affected in a just manner; (b) there was a sufficient public flavour to make the process of investigation and decision a public function distinct from the contractual relationship. (3) The defendant's arguments that no remedy should follow failed: in particular, because the decisions were unfair, inconsistent with or unsupported by the findings of external bodies, and had a serious continuing impact on the claimants and their residents and staff, and because the defendant showed an inability to recognise, even in hindsight, some basic requirements of fairness. | 2012‑08‑31 21:56:51 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] UKSC 23, [2012] MHLO 57 — "In the proceedings, brought by way of judicial review, the appellant challenges a determination made by Cambridgeshire County Council and communicated, at the latest, by a letter dated 3 June 2010 to pay him (in round numbers and as an annual sum) £85k in discharge of its duties to him under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. He contends that the determination was unlawful either because it was not adequately supported by reasons or because it was irrational. He asks that the determination be quashed and either that Cambridgeshire should conduct a re-determination of it or that the court should itself substitute for it a determination that the annual sum payable to him be £120k." | 2012‑06‑21 21:45:14 | 2012 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (NM) v LB Islington [2012] EWHC 414 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 11 — A prisoner whose release was about to be considered by the Parole Board sought judicial review of the local authority's decision not to conduct a s47 NHSCCA 1990 needs assessment with a view to provision of accommodation and support services if he were released from prison. (1) The connection between the Parole Board's consideration of NM's particular case and his release was too 'conditional and speculative' to fall within s47, or within the pragmatic 'about to be in need' or 'may reasonably be considered to be liable' tests from the B case. (2) In other cases of discharge from hospital or prison it may be sufficiently clear that a person is likely in the very near future to be present in the area of the local authority. (3) Consideration of whether the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can be relied upon. | 2012‑03‑01 22:49:59 | 2012 cases, Community care, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| SL v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 954 — On the true meaning of section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended, an asylum seeker suffering from depression and mental health difficulties who had been granted indefinite leave to remain was entitled to residential accommodation if the local authority had provided a programme of assistance and support to him through a care co-ordinator, since such provision of assistance would be otiose without the additional provision of housing. [Summary from WLR (D).] | 2011‑08‑13 15:32:17 | 2011 cases, Community care, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 — 'This appeal concerns the question of whether the Respondent Royal Borough acted unlawfully in seeking to amend the Appellant’s care package by substituting her nighttime carer with provision of incontinence pads or absorbent sheets when the Appellant is not in fact incontinent.' (from Supreme Court press summary) | 2011‑07‑20 20:37:17 | 2011 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2011] EWCA Civ 682 — (1) The assessment of needs was adequate. (2) There has to be a rational link between the needs and the assessed direct payments, but there does not need to be a finite absolute mathematical link, so the use of the Resource Allocation System (RAS) was lawful. (3) The explanation of the personal budget figure was rational. | 2011‑06‑22 20:12:29 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Nassery) v LB Brent [2011] EWCA Civ 539 — The judge was not in error in refusing to set aside the decision of the respondent local authority that the appellant was not entitled to support under section 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948. | 2011‑05‑26 21:27:25 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (W) v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1147 (Admin) — Of the four bands (low, moderate, severe, critical), the council decided to cease adult social care funding for needs which were assessed to be severe; the decision only to fund critical needs was unlawful. | 2011‑05‑23 22:53:23 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Buckinghamshire CC v RB of Kingston upon Thames [2011] EWCA Civ 457 — Where a person is accommodated under s21 NAA 1948 by authority A in area B, the person is deemed still to be ordinarily resident in area A only until he moves out of s21 accommodation (in this case, into supported housing). When assessing under s47 NHSCCA 1990, authority A owes no duty of fairness to area B and there is no duty to consult: the duty is to the person concerned; the role of authority B, as payers for the service, is essentially incidental. | 2011‑04‑30 18:10:30 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC [2009] EWHC 323 (Admin) — Unsuccessful JR of alleged failure to comply with obligations under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to assess the claimant's needs and to provide the resources to meet those needs. | 2011‑03‑30 22:01:47 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Nassery) v LB Brent [2010] EWHC 2326 (Admin) — The claimant unsuccessfully challenged decisions that he did not have a need for care and attention pursuant to s1 NAA 1948 and s47 NHSCCA 1990; the challenge was on the basis that the decisions failed to have regard to, or give good reasons for rejecting, evidence that he needed looking after because of the continued risk of self‑harm or violence arising out of mental health problems (a subsidiary issue was raised about his ability to cook). | 2010‑09‑23 20:20:03 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Watts v UK 53586/09 [2010] ECHR 793 — The challenge to a care home closure, based on Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14, was declared inadmissible. | 2010‑06‑03 22:10:57 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available offline, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Southall) v Dudley PCT [2009] EWHC 1780 (Admin) — The defendant elected to go to a more expensive home for a continuing care package than the one that the PCT offered. The PCT entered into a contract with the care home operator at the lower rate, which would have been appropriate for the other care home on the same overall site, and the patient funded the difference. The patient then challenged the legality of this top up. The Court found that the PCT's refusal to pay in full for the claimant's continuing care package at the more expensive home was reasonable, and that the arrangement was lawful. There was no breach of article 8 in the patient having to choose between making a payment of top-up fees or having to move to the less expensive care home. The claim for Judicial Review was therefore dismissed. | 2009‑12‑23 22:20:48 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1348 — PE had voluntarily moved from St Helens to Manchester and, following the Secretary of State's decision that she was now ordinarily resident there, St Helens decided to stop funding her community care services. (1) Under s29 National Assistance Act 1948 a local authority is under a duty to provide services to those ordinarily resident in its area. (2) St Helens had a power to pay but the exercise of this power did not give rise to a duty or negate Manchester's duty, or give rise to any legitimate expectation. | 2009‑12‑23 17:25:13 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re Robertson (Application for Judicial Review of a decision of Fife Council) [2001] ScotCS 94 — "This case concerns the controversial subject of the provision of and payment for nursing home care for the elderly and infirm." | 2009‑11‑30 23:00:11 | 2001 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (Turner) v Southampton City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1290 — Unsuccessful challenge to the closure of care homes on Article 2 grounds: the test of a "real and immediate risk" is one that is not readily satisfied, in other words the threshold is high; the evidence in this case fell far short of the threshold. Interesting post-script to judgment, critical of solicitor and her repeated similar claims. | 2009‑11‑27 22:10:01 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2001] EWHC Admin 429 — Care home closure. | 2009‑10‑31 18:18:01 | 2001 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366 — Care home closure. | 2009‑10‑31 18:18:00 | 2002 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 181 (Admin) — Closure of residential accommodation. | 2009‑10‑31 17:56:30 | 2002 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust [2001] EWHC Admin 479 — Closure of residential accommodation. | 2009‑10‑31 17:56:21 | 2001 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (C) v Lincolnsire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 685 — [Summary required.] | 2009‑10‑30 23:17:53 | 2001 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Bristol City Council v AW [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC) — Housing and council tax benefits. | 2009‑10‑08 18:43:23 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Magowan, Re Judicial Review [2009] NIQB 6 — Unsuccessful judicial review of failure of social services to make arrangements which would have allowed discharge from hospital. | 2009‑04‑12 21:16:01 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] UKHL 4 — Unsuccessful negligence claim relating to the cancellation of nursing home registration. | 2009‑04‑12 13:23:08 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2007] EWCA Civ 1186 — Unsuccessful negligence claim relating to the cancellation of nursing home registration. | 2009‑04‑12 13:23:03 | 2007 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering; R (YL) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 26 — A care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under ss21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is not performing "functions of a public nature" for the purposes of s6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is thus in that respect not a "public authority" obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of that Act. This is so even though the accommodation and care was arranged, and is being paid for, by the local authority. | 2008‑12‑28 20:45:10 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering [2006] EWHC 1714 (Admin) — A care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under ss21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is not performing "functions of a public nature" for the purposes of s6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is thus in that respect not a "public authority" obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of that Act. This is so even though the accommodation and care was arranged, and is being paid for, by the local authority. | 2008‑12‑28 20:45:08 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE [2007] EWHC 2391 (Admin) — The decision of the funding panel that PE was not eligible for fully funded NHS care was not arguably flawed on public law grounds. | 2008‑12‑08 20:18:41 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Permission hearings, Transcript
|
| R (N) v Coventry City Council [2008] EWHC 2786 (Admin) — "This case concerns the assessment by Coventry City Council of the claimant's needs under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and its decision to refuse him support under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It turns, in particular, on the meaning of "care and attention" in section 21, as interpreted by the House of Lords recently, and the ambit of Article 3 ECHR in the context of community care legislation." (para 1) | 2008‑11‑25 12:19:11 | 2008 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE [2008] EWCA Civ 931 — It was for the primary care trust acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and not for the local authority to decide whether the care needs of a woman with dissociative identity disorder were primarily for health care or for care which a social services authority should provide. The trust was required to define in its decision the services which the social services authority was required to provide to the woman, whose mental and psychological conditions required constant and expensive care. It was not satisfactory for the two parties to resolve the issue by costly litigation, since the money for the care and the litigation all came from the public purse. | 2008‑10‑10 18:38:49 | 2008 cases, Community care, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Permission hearings, Transcript
|
| R (Chavda) v London Borough of Harrow [2007] EWHC 3064 (Admin) — The decision of the Defendant to restrict adult care services to people with critical needs only was unlawful, since the decision-making process did not comply with the Defendant's Disability Equality Duty under s49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. | 2008‑09‑21 06:41:08 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 53 pages are in this category.
A
B
D
J
R
- R (BG) v Suffolk County Council (2021) EWHC 3368 (Admin)
- R (BG) v Suffolk County Council (2022) EWCA Civ 1047
- R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 479
- R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 181 (Admin)
- R (C) v Lincolnsire Health Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 685
- R (Chatting) v Viridian Housing (2012) EWHC 3595 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 177
- R (Chavda) v London Borough of Harrow (2007) EWHC 3064 (Admin)
- R (Cornwall Council v SSH (2015) UKSC 46
- R (Cornwall Council) v SSH (2012) EWHC 3739 (Admin)
- R (Cornwall Council) v SSH (2014) EWCA Civ 12
- R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2001) EWHC Admin 429
- R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2002) EWCA Civ 366
- R (JF) v London Borough of Merton (2017) EWHC 1519 (Admin)
- R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering (2006) EWHC 1714 (Admin)
- R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering; R (YL) v Birmingham City Council (2007) EWCA Civ 26
- R (Kent CC) v SSH (2015) EWCA Civ 81, (2015) MHLO 13
- R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2011) EWCA Civ 682
- R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2012) UKSC 23, (2012) MHLO 57
- R (LH) v Shropshire Council (2014) EWCA Civ 404, (2014) MHLO 18
- R (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Borough Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1348
- R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2011) UKSC 33
- R (N) v Coventry City Council (2008) EWHC 2786 (Admin)
- R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2010) EWHC 2326 (Admin)
- R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2011) EWCA Civ 539
- R (NM) v LB Islington (2012) EWHC 414 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 11
- R (Okil) v LB Southwark (2012) EWHC 1202 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 122
- R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin)
- R (Turner) v Southampton City Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1290
- R (W) v Birmingham City Council (2011) EWHC 1147 (Admin)
- R (Western Health and Social Care Trust) v Secretary of State for Health (2018) NIQB 67
- R (Whapples) v Birmingham CCG (2014) EWHC 2647 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 57
- R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC (2009) EWHC 323 (Admin)
- R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC (2021) EWHC 682 (Admin)
- R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC (2021) EWCA Civ 1957
- R (ZYN) v Walsall MBC (2014) EWHC 1918 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 40
- Re Robertson (Application for Judicial Review of a decision of Fife Council) (2001) ScotCS 94
- Rotherham Doncaster & South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (18 010 101a) (2019) MHLO 43 (LGSCO)
S
- SL v Westminster City Council (2011) EWCA Civ 954
- SL v Westminster City Council (2013) UKSC 27, (2013) MHLO 45
- St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE (2007) EWHC 2391 (Admin)
- St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE (2008) EWCA Civ 931
- Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire CCG (2020) EWHC 3550 (QB)
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: