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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll