Court of Appeal

Published November 13, 2009

Regina (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

Before Sir Anthony May, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Lloyd

Judgment November 6, 2009

Once the Secretary of State for Health had determined that a person was ordinarily resident in a particular area, that local authority had the responsibility to fund a care package, albeit that another local authority had set up the package.

The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal brought by Manchester City Council against the refusal by Mrs Justice Dobbs in the Queen’s Bench Division on December 12, 2008, to allow Manchester to bring judicial review proceedings against the refusal by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council to continue funding the care package of PE.

Mr Stephen Knafler for Manchester; Miss Jenni Richards for St Helens.

THE PRESIDENT said that PE was 36 and had a multiple personality disorder for which she needed a high level care package, which was originally funded by St Helens.

She moved to Manchester of her own choice in 1999 and St Helens carried out an assessment in January 2000, pursuant to section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and continued to meet the cost of the care package.

In September 2005, St Helens initiated best interest proceedings in the Family Division. The experts agreed PE should continue with the residential care package but with responsibility moving to Manchester.

Manchester defended attempts to pass responsibility to them and declined to manage the case arguing that PE was not ordinarily resident in their area.

St Helens applied under section 32(3) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to the secreraty of state who determined that PE had been was ordinarily resident in Manchester since April 2000. St Helens stopped the funding in the light of the secretary of state’s decision`.

His Lordship accepted the submission on behalf of St Helens that they were not under a duty to continue to make arrangements and that Manchester were under the duty.

Section 29(1) of the 1948 Act imposed a statutory duty on the local authority to provide community care services for someone ordinarily resident in their area and a power to provide for someone who was not ordinarily resident in their area.

The exercise of that power did not give rise to an ongoing duty to fund forever. St Helens did not have to establish a change of circumstances in the context of a public law duty.

By virtue of the secretary of state’s decision that PE was ordinarily resident in Manchester, their duty to provide funding of her care package was not negated because St Helens undertook responsibility for her care on an ambiguous legal basis attributable to a power, rather than a duty.

A local authority could withdraw funding subject to considerations of rationality and legitimate expectation. The secretary of state’s determinination provided a rational basis for St Helens’ decision to cease funding.

Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed and Lord Justice Lloyd delivered a concurring judgment.

Solicitors: Ms Susan Orrell, Manchester; Weightmans, Liverpool.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure