Mark Mullins reviews the approach taken by the Supreme Court to the definition of “ordinary residence” in the Cornwall case
The question the Supreme Court had to decide in R (ota) Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health [2015] UKSC 46, [2015] All ER (D) 91 (Jul) was which of three local authorities were responsible for the long-term residential care of a mentally incapacitated young man, Philip. The three authorities were Cornwall, where his parents lived, but he had never lived, Wiltshire, which he had not visited for 13 years but which had funded his foster care from age five to 18, or South Gloucestershire, where he had been fostered and lived during those 13 years.
The secretary of state decided the responsible authority was Cornwall and on judicial review the judge agreed. The Court of Appeal found it was South Gloucestershire. The majority in the Supreme Court finally decided it was in fact Wiltshire.
The facts
Philip was born in December 1986 to parents living in Wiltshire. He has complex
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
