Facts: Kensington decided to meet Ms Savva’s needs by providing her with a personal budget, calculated with the assistance of its resource allocation system (RAS), which involved assessing an individual’s needs in relation to the needs/budgets of others in its area. Ms Savva challenged the methodology and the absence of reasons explaining how her personal budget had been calculated.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay, Longmore and Patten LJJ) held that the methodology was lawful, in that the figure generated by the RAS was simply a starting point and Kensington never lost sight of the fact that, ultimately, the sum awarded had to be sufficient to meet Ms Savva’s needs which, in fact, it was. However, Kensington’s initial failure to provide adequate reasons had been unlawful.