header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 June 2010 / Ed Mitchell , Clive Lewis KC
Issue: 7420 / Categories: Features , Community care , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Caring matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll