R (De Almeida) v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2012] EWHC 1082 Admin (Lang J): the refusal of the defendant local authority to make arrangements for the claimant, a Portuguese national no longer exercising free movement rights and living with HIV/AIDS, under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, was unlawful as contrary to Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention. Click here for the transcript.
R(T) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1115 Admin (Eady J): the claimant lived in a block of flats let by a housing association. She made several complaints to the association about the alleged anti-social behaviour of a neighbour. On one occasion she had an exchange with a friend of that neighbour. He alleged that she had made a homophobic comment and reported the matter to the police. Three months later, the police wrote to the claimant warning her that the allegation was one of harassment and that the letter would be retained as proof that the police had spoken to her about the allegation. The claimant challenged the decision to issue the letter and to retain it on police records. She asserted that it breached data protection principles and her human rights. The High Court dismissed the claim. There had been no illegality in the conduct of the police. Click here for the transcript.
Sedge v Prime (25 April 2012)(John Leighton Williams QC): the court authorised an interim payment of £150,000 in order to enable the severely disabled victim of a road traffic accident to move out of his residential care home and try a period of care in the community pending trial on quantum. (Extempore judgment: currently on Lawtel only).
Oxborrow v West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 1010 QB (Tugendhat J): an interim payment sufficient for a young, severely disabled applicant to cover the costs of his special accommodation needs was appropriate where it could be said to a high degree of confidence that the trial judge would award a lump sum for the purchase and alteration of suitable accommodation, rather than rental property. Click here for the transcript.
R (Okil) v Southwarl LBC (20 April 2012)(Underhill J): a local authority's decision that an individual was not in need of "care and attention" within the meaning of the National Assistance Act 1948 s.21(1)(a) was rational and legitimate as his problems were not ones that care and monitoring could address. (Extempore judgment: currently on Lawtel only).
R (Bevan & Clarke LLP and others) v Neath Port Talbot CBC [2012] EWHC 236 Admin (Beatson J): the Commissioning Guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers under section 7 of LASSA 1970 (Fulfilled Lives, Supportive Communities: Commissioning Framework, Guidance and Good Practice, August 2010) meant that whilst the Council was less closely regulated than a social landlord it did not have the freedom that a private individual would have to use its bargaining power to drive down the price as far as possible; accordingly, its decision as to what fees to pay care home providers was amenable to judicial review. However, the judicial review application failed because, overall, the Council’s decision had been rational and, in particular, it had been rational for the Council to (i) take into account its own figures derived from applying the Laing & Buisson “toolkit” as well as those provided by Care Forum Wales, (ii) use a lower rate of return on capital than the 12% suggested in the “toolkit” and (iii) taking into account its lack of resources, set a rate for fees less than both its own and Care Forum Wales’ assessment of the costs of care. Click here for the transcript.
R (NM) v Islington LBC [2012] EWHC 414 Admin (Sales J): it had been lawful for the Council to decline to assess the claimant’s community care needs, under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, because the claimant was in prison and, whilst his case was about to be considered by the Parole Board, it could not be said that it was reasonably clear that he was about to be in need of community care services: his potential need was conditional on the Parole Board directing his release from prison and, before the Parole Board could properly direct the claimant’s release on he basis that he was to live in Islington, multi-agency public protection arrangements would have to be operated, and that had not been done: before the Parole Board could direct the claimant’s release on the basis that he was to live in Islington: “the connection between the proposed consideration of the Claimant's case by the Parole Board as things stand on the case before the Board and the release of the Claimant to go to Islington is too conditional and speculative to fall within the narrow class of future provision cases covered by section 47(1). Nor can it be properly said that the Claimant is "about to be in need" or "may reasonably be considered to be liable" to have an order for release made in his favour”. Click here for the transcript.
