Facts: the Secretary of State decided to close the Independent Living Fund (ILF), devolving funding for the purpose of sustaining independent living to local social services authorities. The claimant contended that consultation had been unlawful and that the Secretary of State had failed to discharge the PSED.

Judgment: The Court of Appeal (Elias, Kitchin and McCombe LJJ) held that consultation had been adequate in that consultees had had an adequate opportunity of explaining the likely effect on them of the closure of the fund and it had not been necessary to provide them with financial information about the costs associated with closure of the ILF or to explain more than that the reason for the proposal was to achieve an integrated care system and economies of scale. As far as concerned the PSED, the material presented to the Minister signally failed to draw her attention to the possible adverse consequences for disabled individuals and her legal duties; the majority (Elias LJ dissenting) held that it could not be inferred from the evidence that, nonetheless, the Minister had herself personally appreciated such matters. McCombe LJ summarised the legal principles on behalf of the Court of Appeal at paragraph 25 (set out above at para5.8).