Aster Healthcare Ltd v Estate of Mr Mohammed Shafi  EWCA Civ 1350 (MR, Beatson and Briggs LJJ): on a proper construction of the placement agreement, it was arguable that the contract was between the care home and the LA, and that it was the LA, not the resident or his wife, who was responsible for the care home fees of the incapacitated resident. In any event, under the legislation machinery, the LA was under a statutory duty to provide assistance to the resident unless and until a Deputy or other person was appointed on his behalf. It was also arguable that the resident was not required to pay for the accommodation as a ‘necessary’ service, under section 7 MCA 2005 because that obligation did not arise if services were provided on terms that the incapacitated adult was not to pay for them, as was arguable the case here. Click here for the judgment.
R (Robson) v Salford CC  EWHC 3491 Admin (HHJ Stephen Davies): the LA decision to cease direct provision of a transport service to adult day centres was lawful. The consultation and equalities impact assessments were reasonable (in any event, consultation can only by impugned if there is ‘clear unfairness’ and ‘something has gone clearly and radically wrong’. It could not be said that there was any significant risk that service users’ needs could not be met by alternative provision. Click here for the judgment.