CHAPTER 16
Care home and other service closures
16.9The public sector equality duty (PSED) 16.16Management of the closure process 16.21Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Cases
16.27R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213, (1999) 2 CCLR 285, CA In the absence of special circumstances a health authority was not required to assess the needs of patients before deciding to close a facility. The clear promise of a ‘home for life’ created a legitimate expectation that had not been fully taken into account, nor demonstrated to be overridden by a public interest
16.28R v Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority ex p Perry, Andrew and Harman (2000) 3 CCLR 378, QBD A closure decision was unlawful where the health authority disregarded a ‘home for life’ promise and failed, contrary to guidance, to undertake prior assessments
16.29R v Barking and Dagenham LBC ex p Lloyd (2001) 4 CCLR 5, QBD On the facts, there had not been any ‘home for life’ promise
16.30R v Barking and Dagenham LBC ex p Lloyd (2001) 4 CCLR 27, CA Parties in care home closure proceedings should mediate
16.31R v Barking and Dagenham LBC ex p Lloyd (2001) 4 CCLR 196, CA On analysis, redevelopment plans would not breach any ‘home for life’ promise whilst detailed criticisms of the process should be pursued through a complaints procedure
16.32R (Bodimeade) v Camden LBC (2001) 4 CCLR 246 A closure decision was unlawful where the local authority had disregarded a clear ‘home for life’ promise and failed to undertake prior assessment
16.33R (Cowl) v Plymouth CC [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, (2002) 5 CCLR 42 It was lawful to take a strategic decision to close a care home, subject to completion of assessments at a later date. The parties should have done far more to pursue mediation, notwithstanding the existence of some legal issues
16.34R (Madden) v Bury MBC [2002] EWHC 1882 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 622 The consultation process was unlawful where officers failed to communicate accurate information about the risks and benefits
16.35R (C, M, P, HM) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 181 (Admin), (2003) 6 CCLR 335 Where disputed, the existence of a ‘home for life’ promise had to be clearly evidenced, especially in the context of a hospital, which is primarily a place for care and treatment
16.36R (Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 (Admin), (2003) 6 CCLR 352 The decision not to renew a contract with a private sector care home was not incompatible with the residents’ ECHR rights
16.37Collins v United Kingdom Application No 11909/02, (2003) 6 CCLR 388 Notwithstanding the existence of a ‘home for life’ promise, the decision to override that promise had been lawful in national law and compliant with the ECHR
16.38R (CH and MH) v Sutton and Merton PCT [2004] EWHC 2984 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 5 The court needed to consider for itself whether there was indeed an overriding public interest that justified resiling from a ‘home for life’ promise and whether, as was asserted, it was in the ‘best interests’ of residents to move
16.39R (Bishop) v Bromley LBC [2006] EWHC 2148 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 635 Prior assessments were only required in exceptional cases
16.40R (Morris) v Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWHC 2334 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 648 The failure to consult was unlawful but the grant of relief was not practical
16.41R (J) v Southend BC [2005] EWHC 3457 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 407 A local authority was entitled to assume that the needs of users of its day centre services, ordinarily resident elsewhere, would be assessed and met by the local authority of their ordinary residence
16.42R (Wilson) v Coventry CC, R (Thomas) v Havering LBC [2008] EWHC 2300 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCLR 7 The decision to close care homes was not incompatible with Article 2 on account of the risks to life and was otherwise lawful
16.43R (Rutter) v Stockton on Tees BC [2008] EWHC 2651 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCLR 27 Risks could be considered at Scrutiny stage and relief could be refused in all the circumstances
16.44R (B) v Worcestershire CC [2009] EWHC 2915 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCLR 13 The closure decision was based on irrational premises
16.45R (Boyejo) v Barnet LBC [2009] EWHC 3261 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCLR 72 The discharge of the duty to consult and the disability equality assessment had been unlawful
16.46Watts v United Kingdom Application No 53586/09, (2010) 51 EHRR SE5 A carefully managed process of care home closure did not violate rights under Articles 2, 3 or 8 ECHR
16.47R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly CBC [2012] EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) 15 CCLR 82 A decision to terminate a framework contract was contractual and not amenable to judicial review, neither did it infringe ECHR rights
16.48R (LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404, (2014) 17 CCLR 216 A local authority was entitled to consult in general terms on a policy change, if it then consulted before closing individual services. Where a day centre had closed and its staff had been dispersed, no relief would be granted in relation to an unlawful disclosure process
16.49R (Michael Robson) v Salford CC [2013] EWHC 3481 (Admin), (2014) 17 CCLR 474 The court summarised consultation principles and concluded that in substance consultees had been adequately informed about what was proposed and that the PSED had been lawfully discharged
16.50R (Michael Robson) v Salford CC [2015] EWCA Civ 6 The consultation materials lacked clarity but overall consultees must have known what the proposal was and what the alternative were, so that the process had been fair; there may have been significant flaws in the community impact assessment but overall the PSED had been discharged