Karia, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ms. Amrutben Karia challenged Leicester City Council's decision to close her residential home, Herrick Lodge, citing failures to properly inform themselves and consider discrimination and equality impacts. The court dismissed her claims, holding that the Council adequately informed itself, considered relevant equality duties, and took proper account of her future Article 8 ECHR rights and care needs.
Judgment
Sir Stephen Silber :
Introduction
There are few issues, which prompt such controversy as attempts to close a home for elderly people who have lived there for long periods. This is the background to the present application which is a challenge by Ms Amrutben Karia (“the Claimant”) who seeks to quash the decision (“the October Decision”) made by Leicester City Council (“the Council”) on 15 October 2013 to withdraw the provision of direct residential home care in Leicester. This application relates to Phase One of the October Decision, which was that three care homes including Herrick Lodge would close. The Claimant, who is a British Asian woman of Gujarati descent, is 101 years old, and she has lived in Herrick Lodge since 1999. It is the only one of the three homes due to close under Phase One of the October Decision that has not been closed, because its closure has been postponed pending the determination of the present application.
The Council is the social services authority for Leicester, and so it has an obligation under s.21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (“ NAA ”) (which is set out in the Appendix to this judgment) to make arrangements for providing residential accommodation to those in its area who, by reason of, inter alia, age are in need of care and attention which is “not otherwise available to them”. It is common ground first, that there is no obligation on the Council to provide the accommodation itself as it can discharge its duty to such individuals by using accommodation run by private organisations and by the voluntary sector, and second, that the Claimant is a person to whom such duty is owed by the Council. It is not suggested that the Council is now in breach of such duty while Herrick Lodge remains open.
The challenges to the October Decision are that the Council:
(a) Failed to adequately inform itself on material issues of fact and proceeded on the basis of fundamental errors of fact relating to first, the overall present and future levels of demand for residential care home provision; and second, the nature of demand for residential care before making the October Decision in breach of the principles explained by Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside NBC [1977] AC 1014 (“Issue 1”);
(b) Reached the October Decision “without due regard” to first, the need to avoid unlawful discrimination in the provision of services; second, the need to advance equality of opportunity for people o