View source for R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC (2021) EWCA Civ 1957

{{Case
|Date=2021/12/22
|NCN=[2021] EWCA Civ 1957
|ICLR=[2022] WLR(D) 14
|ICLR ID=2021001460
|Other citations=[2022] PTSR 833
|Court=Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
|Judges=Coulson, Carr, William Davis
|Parties=Worcestershire County Council, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Swindon Borough Council
|Judicial history first case=R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC (2021) EWHC 682 (Admin)
|Cites=R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 77
|Sentence=Ordinary residence and s117
|Summary=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.
|External links=*{{rsum|Luke Clements, 'What a mess - s117 ordinary residence (again)' (2/1/22)}}

*{{link
|text=Supreme Court case details page
|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0022.html
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20230428203722/https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0022.html}}. You can watch a video of the 27/4/23 hearing online.
|Subject=After-care,Community care
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2022/01/12 09:21:57 AM
}}