2011 07 Adult Care

Monday 1 August 2011

Share This Page

Email This Page

R (McDonald) v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2011] UKSC 33 (Lord Walker JSC, Lady Hale JSC, Lord Brown JSC, Lord Kerr JSC and Lord Dyson JSC): (Lady Hale JSC dissenting) Ms M was not incontinent but, because she had a small bladder, she needed to urinate 2 or 3 times a night, and, because of her physical disability, she required assistance to reach her commode to do so. The Supreme Court held that the local authority had been entitled to re-assess Ms M’s need and to decide that she did not need assistance to reach her commode (which could only realistically be met by providing a night-time carer), but, instead, general toileting assistance (which could be met by the provision of incontinence pads). Click here for the transcript.

R (TG) v North Somerset DC [2011] EWHC Admin (Laws LJ): because of the local authority’s serious concerns about the conduct of the claimants’ parents, who were also the trustees of their user independent trust, and their litigation friends, the local authority had been entitled, without carrying out any form of consultation or re-assessment of need, to make payments reduced by 33% to interim brokers appointed by the local authority pending a full investigation, and then to terminate direct payments altogether and to provide services arranged by the local authority (which did in fact continue to meet the claimants’ needs). Click here for the provisional Lawtel report(there is as yet no free transcript).

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards