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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
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
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
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
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
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
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll