The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights.
 EWHC 414 (Admin)
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1), National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47(1), uropean Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – Regina (Vetterlein) v Hampshire County Council Admn 2001
The claimants challenged a planning permission granted to a waste disposal site, saying that it violated their article 8 rights.
Held: The court asked whether there was reasonable and convincing evidence that the claimants quality of life . .
Cited – Hirvisaari v Finland ECHR 27-Sep-2001
Article 6 guarantees a duty to provide adequate reasons for an authority’s decision. It is only by giving a reasoned decision that there can be public scrutiny of the administration of justice. . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Regina v Islington Borough Council Ex Parte Rixon QBD 17-Apr-1996
The local authority regarded lack of resources or facilities as an insuperable obstacle to any further attempt to make provision under the 1970 Act.
Held: A Local Authority should allow for non-statutory guidance in assessing a disabled . .
Cited – Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry HL 21-Mar-1997
The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – Regina v Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Radar Admn 1998
It is not sufficient for an authority to discharge its duty under the Act by writing letters to those affected or potentially affected and offering them reassessment.
Carnwath J said: ‘In some areas of the law that might be an adequate . .
Cited – Eisai Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Shire Pharmaceuticals Limited and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (Interveners) CA 1-May-2008
The applicant pharmaceutical companies challenged the decision of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to to list certain drugs saying that the procedure adopted was unfair. NICE had revealed that results of calculations it had made . .
Appeal from – Savva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Oct-2010
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.402595