header-logo header-logo

03 June 2010 / Ed Mitchell , Clive Lewis KC
Issue: 7420 / Categories: Features , Community care , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Caring matters

Ed Mitchell & Clive Lewis QC report on a rare event in community care law

The High Court’s decision in R (B & Others) v Worcestershire CC [2009] EWHC 2915 (Admin) was that rarest of things, a successful claim for judicial review of a council’s decision to reorganise care provision which did not rely on non-compliance with general equality duties. It is a useful reminder that local authorities must be able to show that, post-reorganisation, service users’ eligible needs (the community care needs that a council has decided to meet) will remain capable of being met. The case arose because a council decided to close a day centre for adults with profound learning disabilities. Council officials told the committee which took the decision that an alternative centre would meet the displaced adults’ eligible needs.
 
However, when resourcing levels were fixed for that centre no analysis was carried out of whether that would be the case. As a result, no one could be certain that those needs would be met within the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll