header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 December 2009 / Ed Mitchell , Clive Lewis KC
Issue: 7396 / Categories: Features , Community care
printer mail-detail

Lethal weapon?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

New equality legislation has strengthened the hand of challengers to community care charging decisions, say Ed Mitchell & Clive Lewis QC

The equality legislation has provided a new weapon in the armoury of those who wish to challenge community care charging decisions.

However, it remains very difficult to mount a successful legal challenge to a carefully planned decision to introduce or increase charges. The latest case to illustrate this point was the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Domb & Others) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 941.

Hammersmith & Fulham LBC had decided to reduce its council tax by 3% and so had to make savings or increase revenue. So far as the contribution of home care services to balancing the books was concerned, the council decided that it either had to raise eligibility thresholds (provide fewer services) or introduce charges.

Following a consultation exercise, the council decided to start charging although a means test would be applied so that poorer service users would continue to pay nothing.

Three

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