header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / Ed Mitchell
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

Community Care law update

Community care

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

More and more social services authorities are tightening their eligibility criteria for community care services. In December 2007, the High Court in R (on the application of Chavda and others) v Harrow London Borough Council [2007] EWHC 3064 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 337 (Dec), considered whether or not it was lawful for an authority to restrict eligibility to persons with a “critical” need for services under the Department of Health’s Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) guidance.

The court held that, in principle, it was lawful for an authority to restrict eligibility to those with critical needs. However, it also held that ’s decision to restrict eligibility was unlawful because it had failed, in taking that decision, to discharge its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). Section 49A of DDA 1995 required “in carrying out its functions to have regard to the need to…promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons”. The court held that

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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll