Facts: SL was a failed asylum-seeker with fresh representations who suffered from PTSD and depression. He was independent in self-care skills and had no cognitive difficulties but required practical assistance in arranging activities during the day and regular monitoring of his mental state (with general advice and encouragement), not normally at his home. Westminster concluded that SL did not require ‘care and attention’ for the purposes of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

Judgment: the Supreme Court (Neuberger, Hale, Mance, Kerr and Carnwath JJSC) agreed with Westminster, holding that SL had not needed anything beyond ‘monitoring’ of his mental state, whereas a need for ‘care and attention’ denoted a need that went beyond that and had to be the sort of care that was normally provided in a home (whether ordinary or specialised) or that would be effectively useless if the applicant had no home. In this case, even if what SL needed had amounted to ‘care and attention’ it was in no way related to the provision of accommodation and, for that reason also, did not trigger the duty to provide residential accommodation.