header-logo header-logo

Social security

19 March 2010
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Savva) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2010] EWHC 414 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 118 (Mar)

The claimant completed a personal budget supported self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ). After a hospital visit she completed another and was allocated a higher points score; however the monetary value was unchanged and no reasons given.

The court ruled that there was a requirement for there to be reasons given by a panel that was making a decision relating to a personal budget, and the provision of direct payments under s 57 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 in discharge of its duty under s 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

Personal budgets were new and in many ways represented a fundamental shift in community care. It would have to be incumbent on those responsible for that provision, to be transparent, and to explain individual decisions in a precise and clear manner.
 

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll