R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly CBC  EWHC 37 Admin (HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC): the court dismissed the care home owner’s application for permission to apply for judicial review of the council’s decision to terminate its framework contract for the provision of residential care at one of its care homes, because of inadequate care provision (the court gave permission for the judgment to be cited). The court held that it was not arguable that (1) the owner was entitled to bring public law proceedings (cf. a private law contract action), (2) the owner was entitled to rely on alleged breaches of public law/ECHR duties owed by the council to care home residents, (3) the council (in any event) had been in breach of any alleged public law duty owed to the residents, (4) the council had breached the owner’s rights under Article 1 of the 1stProtocol ECHR. Click here for the transcript.
R (DM)v Doncaster MBC  EWHC 3652 Admin (Langstaff J): it was not unlawful and, in particular, it was not discriminatory in breach of Articles 1 of the 1stProtocol and 14 ECHR, for a local authority to charge fees for the provision ofresidential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, even though it was detaining the resident in the accommodation, pursuant to Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005: the resident was not in the same position as persons accommodated after detention pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (for their own and the public’s protection). Click here for the transcript (Lawtel only).
R (Rajput) v Waltham Forest LBC  EWCA Civ 1577 (Carnwath, Rimer, Jackson LJJ): The council was not in breach of duty under section 49A of the DDA 1995, despite its failure to refer to that provision. The impact of its proposed changes to the level of service provided to elderly and disabled residents of sheltered housing and the local authority had been aware of its duties and the factual background to the decision. It had understood the concerns but was rationally satisfied that they would be met. Click here for the transcript (Lawtel only).
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Slavin  EWCA Civ 1515 (Pill, Richards, Davis LJJ): a person residing in a care home was entitled to the mobility component of disability living allowance because it could not be said that he came within the definition that would have excluded him from the benefit, namely that he was “maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient... in a hospital or similar institution” within the meaning of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 reg12A. Click here for the transcript.