R (Sefton Care Association) v Sefton Council  EWHC 2676 (Admin)(HHJ Raynor QC): the council’s decision not to increase care home fees was unlawful because, on the facts, it had failed to consult with the claimants or take into account the “actual costs of care” and other local factors. However, the judge dismissed the claimants’ application based on section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holding that in a case where a local authority lawfully determines the “usual cost of care” there is no further need to consider the equality duty: the authority will be entitled to proceed on the basis that the requirements of the equality duty will be complied with in the preparation of individual needs assessments and care plans. Click here for the transcript.
JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity  EWHC 2871 QB (McDuffJ): The diocesan bishop could be vicariously liable for the alleged torts (involving sexual abuse) of a priest of his diocese, because of the nature and closeness of the relationship between bishop and priest. Click here for the transcript.
R (JM) v Isle of Wight Council  EWHC 2911 (Admin)(Lang J): the local authority acted unlawfully by (i) “splitting” its “substantial” band under FACS so as to prioritise the risk factors of not being able to remain at home and be safe ahead of the other risk factors in the substantial band, and by (ii) “splitting” its “critical” and “substantial” bands so as to exclude risks that were less likely/frequently to materialise. Further, the Council’s consultation had been unlawful as it had not provided the consultees with sufficient information and its equalities assessment had been unlawful because it had not been sufficiently focussed and concrete. The judgement contains useful summaries of community care law (paragraphs 38 to 49) and equalities law (paragraphs 92 to 108). Click here for the transcript.