Facts: Bury decided to close two care homes for policy reasons (to reduce the amount of residential care provision in favour of alternatives such as sheltered housing) and because of its relative cost. However, when it undertook consultation about closure, Bury emphasised that one home required costly structural repairs whereas the other required costly upgrading to meet required standards for registration: concerns that were grossly exaggerated.

Judgment: Richards J held that the information that Bury provided to residents had been misleading, it had not given any indication of possible alternatives and the tenor of the exercise indicated that the principle of closure was not up for discussion: accordingly, Bury had failed to undertake lawful consultation. Relief would not be withheld because, whilst Bury would probably still have decided to close the care homes, even had it undertaken lawful consultation, ‘I cannot be certain that the result would have been the same’.