The appellants appealed rejection of their application for judicial review. They were long term residents in a nursing home, which the respondents had decided to close.
Held: Though the respondent did exercise some public functions, and its activities were in part paid for by public authorities, its activity of providing residential accommodation was not a public function, and its decisions with regard to that activity were not capable of challenge under Human Rights law. Suggestions in the court below that proceedings should not have been by way of judicial review were sterile, and courts should look beyond the form of the application. A local authority respondent should be careful of its statutory obligations, and duties under Human Rights Law, and could not divest itself of obligations by contracting them out.
Judges:
Lord Woolf CJ, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
Times 08-Apr-2002, [2002] 2 All ER 936, [2002] EWCA Civ 366, 69 BMLR 22
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 53 54, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1) 26(1), Human Rights Act 1998 6, European Convention on Human Rights Art 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Elizabeth Heather; Martin Ward; Hilary Callin) v The Leonard Cheshire Foundation and H M Attorney General Admn 15-Jun-2001
The applicants sought review of the decision of the respondent to close the residential home in which they lived.
Held: The Foundation, though a charity, was not a public body, and its decisions were not properly subject to an application for . .
Cited by:
Appealed To – Regina (on the Application of Elizabeth Heather; Martin Ward; Hilary Callin) v The Leonard Cheshire Foundation and H M Attorney General Admn 15-Jun-2001
The applicants sought review of the decision of the respondent to close the residential home in which they lived.
Held: The Foundation, though a charity, was not a public body, and its decisions were not properly subject to an application for . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
Cited – Mullins, Regina (on the Application of) v The Jockey Club Admn 17-Oct-2005
The claimant’s horse had been found after a race to have morphine in his system. It was not thought that the claimant was at fault, but the horse was disqualifed. He sought judicial review of the decision.
Held: The decision was a disciplinary . .
Cited – Johnson and others v London Borough of Havering and others CA 30-Jan-2007
The claimants were residents of old people’s homes run by the council and maintained under s21 of the 1948 Act. They objected to the transfer of the homes into the private sector saying that it would infringe their rights to family life, and that . .
Cited – YL v Birmingham City Council and Others HL 20-Jun-2007
The House was asked whether a private care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident under arrangements with a local authority the 1948 Act, is performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.168527