R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  EWHC Admin 897 (Blake J): it had been lawful to close the Independent Living Fund; due regard had been had to the potential impact on disabled beneficiaries for the purposes of the public sector equality duty and sufficient information had been provided for the consultation process to have been lawful. Click here for the judgment.
R (Members of the Committee of Care North East Northumberland) v Northumberland CC and Northumberland Care Trust  EWHC 234 (Admin) (Supperstone J): in setting care home fees, the Council was entitled to “have due regard to the actual costs of providing care” locally, for the purposes of LAC (2004) 20, “not by an exercise in precise quantification, but by exercising its judgment and experience in the light of how the market was functioning in practice, and what it knew about fees paid and costs incurred elsewhere”. Nor was it unlawful to decide not to usually make placements at homes that refused to enter into contracts at the Council’s usual rates. Click here for the judgment.
R (Dempsey) v Sutton LBC  EWCA Civ (Pill, Black LJJ): Where it had been reasonable for a claimant to issue judicial review proceedings and she had in substance achieved what she set out to achieve in the proceedings she was entitled to her costs and a deputy judge had been wrong to make no order for costs when the proceedings were settled by consent. Click here for the Lawtel note (no free transcript as yet).