header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 August 2012 / Tim Spencer-Lane
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Community care
printer mail-detail

Duty of care

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Tim Spencer-Lane examines recent case law involving the community care responsibilities of local councils

Two recent High Court decisions have put down markers for local councils who are seeking to reduce the costs of community care services. In both cases, the court emphasised the importance of following statutory guidance, carrying out adequate consultation and complying with the general public sector equality duty.

Sefton

In R (Sefton Care Association) v Sefton Council [2011] EWHC 2676 (Admin), the court quashed the council’s decision to freeze the fees it paid for people placed in residential care. For several years, the council had increased its residential care fees and had always sought the views of local care home providers, but in 2010 it informed providers that there would be no increase due to an overspend in community care. No prior consultation was carried out.

This freeze was continued for a second year, despite reassurances from the council of a two per cent increase for the following years. The council’s decision was successfully challenged by Seton

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