Facts: Kingston had provided SL with residential accommodation in Buckinghamshire area, so that SL was deemed to remain ordinarily resident in Kingston, for the purposes of sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act (NAA) 1948, by virtue of section 24(5) of the NAA 1948 (ie for the purposes of residential accommodation). Kingston then placed SL in a supported living arrangement in Buckinghamshire, as a result of which SL became ordinarily resident in Buckinghamshire for the purposes of NAA 1948 s28 (home care) and its responsibility. Buckinghamshire sought a judicial review of the placement, on the ground that Kingston had been under a legal requirement, which it breached, to consult with Buckinghamshire before making the placement.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Pill, Patten and Munby LJJ) rejected Buckinghamshire’s case, holding that Kingston was discharging statutory duties towards SL, to whom it also owed a duty to act fairly. The common law duty did not require Kingston to consult with Buckinghamshire, as a result of the procedural fairness principle, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme for it to do so:

1) There was no legal basis for a duty of fairness towards Buckinghamshire in the form of a duty to consult it. Kingston was performing, in accordance with section 47 of the National Health Services and Community Care Act 1990 and section 29 of the 1948 Act, a duty to SL, and it was fairness to the service user that had to be at the centre of decision-making. Fairness to Buckinghamshire could arise only if performance of the duty to SL required that there should be a duty to consult it but there was no basis upon which the court could create such a duty. Such a requirement would complicate the decision-making process in relation to SL, and there would be a danger of delay and satellite litigation.

2) Co-operation in the obtaining of information was to be encouraged but an enforceable duty should not be read into the procedure. If it were to be imposed, it should be created by statute or in directions from the Secretary of State. Had Parliament intended to make provision for the protection of the financial or other interests of different authorities in the decision-making process, express provision would have been made.1(2011) 14 CCLR 426–427.

Comment: under the Care Act 2014, a local authority will remain responsible for service users whom it has placed in another local authority area, in residential accommodation, should those purposes move into supported housing: see paras 12.16–12.19 below.