Facts: Devon and Durham proposed to close care homes. Residents sought a judicial review on the basis that Devon and Durham had been under a duty to consult with them first, which they had not discharged.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Dillon, Farquharson and Simon Brown LJJ) held that Devon and Durham had been under a duty to consult but that, whilst the Devon residents had been made aware of the proposals and had been afforded adequate time to make representations, that had not been the case in Durham. As to the legal principles the court held that (1) Where a local authority proposed to close a residential home for the elderly as part of a general reorganisation of the provision of residential care for elderly people in its area, the authority owed the permanent residents of the home a duty to act fairly in making the decision to close the home, which duty included a duty to consult over the proposed closure, the reason being that the residents enjoyed an existing benefit or advantage such that it would be unfair to deprive them of it, without first consulting them. The essentials of any consultation in that context required that (i) that the residents be informed of the proposed closure of their home well in advance of the final decision on the matter; (ii) that the residents have reasonable time in which to put their objections to the proposed closure to the local authority; and (iii) that those objections be considered by the local authority. The prima facie obligation to accord procedural fairness did not mean that each individual resident had an individual right to be consulted face to face by local authority officers or groups of councillors and could be achieved by meetings held by local authority officers with the residents generally at a particular home or by views expressed through the support group.