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: 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
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
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
back-to-top-scroll