0370 270 6000

Austerity v Duty of Care

5 November 2010

In a recent test case the Court of Appeal has decided that The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea acted lawfully when it decided to withdraw services to one of its clients to save money.

Following a stroke in 1999, Elaine McDonald, aged 67 had restricted mobility. In 2008, she fell and broke her hip. She was subsequently assessed as needing 24 hour support to assist her using a commode and her local authority provided a sleep-in care worker seven days a week. The authority later decided that they could make a saving of £22,000 a year supplying Miss McDonald with incontinence pads to use at night instead, and she challenged this decision.

To date it has been difficult to know how far the courts will let a public authority reduce their services, but this case gives us some idea. We expect many more disputes like this, as budgets tighten across the whole of health and social care provision.

Related opinions

IR35 rules to be scrapped from April 2023

The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.

View blog

Challenges from potential Foster Carers and Adopters

Our immediate future shows a renewed focus on foster care. We’re going to see a new nationwide-drive to recruit foster carers and the implementation of a more robust, and potentially financially-generous system for encouraging friends and family to care for their relatives (both when extended families cannot cope or provide care for any reason).

View blog

Unions bowled over by strike legislation

As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.

View blog

No change to status tests

The Government has referred to the greater “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, considering it appropriate to allow the impact of this decision to take effect, before considering further intervention.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up