2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Philip, a severely disabled individual, was placed in foster care by Wiltshire since his parents moved to Cornwall. When Philip turned 18, Wiltshire funded his care in Somerset. A dispute arose over which local authority should bear responsibility for his care costs. The Secretary of State determined that Philip was ordinarily resident in Cornwall. Cornwall challenged this decision in court, arguing Philip had no significant residence there. The court ruled in favor of Cornwall, stating that Philip's ordinary residence was South Gloucestershire, where he had lived most of his life.
Judgment
Lord Justice Elias :
Local authorities have a wide range of duties, imposed under a variety of statutes, to secure the provision of care and other types of assistance for certain children and vulnerable adults. Criteria have to be identified to determine which authority has the obligation. In a general sense it will be the authority with which the individual has the closest connection. Some test has to be adopted to reflect that general notion, and typically this is to ask where the person is ordinarily resident, although sometimes the alternative formulae of normal or habitual residence are used. Usually the application of that test is straightforward and provides a clear answer, but not always. Human beings have the inconvenient habit of conducting their lives without regard to legal categories, and the application of the relevant test is sometimes highly problematic. The difficulties of applying the test are compounded where, as in this case, the vulnerable adult does not have the capacity to make a voluntary choice about where to live. Given the potential financial implications for whichever authority bears the burden, it is not surprising that there should from time to time be disputes between authorities, essentially about who pays. There is a stream of cases in different statutory contexts testifying to the difficulties of applying the test in atypical circumstances, and this is yet another. In this case the Secretary of State was (subject to an argument in this appeal) statutorily empowered to resolve the dispute. The issue he had to decide was where Philip, a severely disabled person lacking capacity, was ordinarily resident when he turned 18. He concluded that it was in Cornwall which, if he is correct, will therefore have to foot the not inconsiderable bill - currently estimated at some £80k a year - for providing the necessary care for Philip throughout his life. Cornwall challenged that determination by way of judicial review before Beatson J, as he then was, but were unsuccessful. They now appeal against his decision. Three other local authorities who consider that they potentially have an interest in the outcome were given permission to intervene and they made both written and oral submissions. The court is grateful for the assistance given by all counsel.
The facts
There was an agreed statement of facts before the Secretary of State. I gratefully adopt the summary derived from that statement set out in the decision of the Secre