header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 September 2007 / Ed Mitchell , Clive Lewis
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Features , Community care
printer mail-detail

Community care law update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

PAYING FOR LONG TERM CARE
HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVATE CARE HOMES
PROTECTING VULNERABLE ADULTS

ACCIDENT VICTIMS’ LONG TERM CARE

Care costs money. The greater the care needs, the greater the cost. Where the care needs arise because of another’s negligence, who should pay? Most would say the tortfeasor. However, the complex interaction of a number of legal rules sometimes leads to local social services authorities having to foot the bill. Accordingly, in these cases massive resources are required in order to provide lifetime care for a person who has suffered catastrophic injuries in an accident and local authorities often find themselves shocked to learn that they, rather than the tortfeasor, are expected to find the resources.
Case law to date has focused on accident victims who require residential care. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Crofton v NHS Litigation Authority [2007] EWCA Civ 71, [2007] All ER (D) 106 (Feb) however, concerned victims who require domiciliary care. The decision illustrates that the same transfer of responsibility from tortfeasor to local authority is

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