R v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, ex parte Barry ; Same v Same
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1996 |
| Date | 27 June 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Hirst, Lord Justice Swinton Thomas and Sir John Balcombe
Local authority - chronically sick and disabled - resources not relevant to assessment of need
A local authority was not entitled to take into account the availability or otherwise of resources when carrying out its duty under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 of making a decision as to whether it was satisfied in the case of a disabled person that it was necessary in order to meet the needs of that person to make arrangements for all or any of the matters set out in the section.
Where a local authority had identified such needs of a disabled person, resources might be relevant in considering how the needs might be met.
The Court of Appeal so held: (i) allowing, Lord Justice Hirst dissenting, an appeal by Michael Barry against part of a decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Waller) (The Times June 21, 1995) granting judicial review of decisions by Gloucestershire County Council withdrawing services under section 2 of the 1970 Act but refusing his application for an additional declaration that in assessing or reassessing the needs of a disabled person under that Act a local authority was not entitled to take account of the resources available to it; and
(ii) dismissing unanimously an appeal by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation ("RADAR") and Beryl Gilpin against the dismissal by Mr Justice Hidden on July 5, 1995 of an application by Mrs Gilpin's mother, Mrs Annie Ingham deceased, for judicial review of decisions of Lancashire County Council on October 5, 1994 to review Mrs Ingham's care arrangements and on December 9, 1994 that her needs for 24-hour care could best be met by the provision of residential care.
Mr Richard Gordon, QC and Mr Alan Maclean for Barry; Miss Cherie Booth, QC and Miss Helen Mountfield for RADAR and Ingham; Mr Patrick Eccles, QC and Mr Christopher Fraser for Gloucestershire County Council; Miss Genevra Caws QC and Mr Clive Lewis for Lancashire County Council; Mr Nigel Pleming, QC and Mr Stephen Kovats for the Secretary of State for Health, the second respondent in Barry's application.
LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS said the words...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC
...law in this respect is to be found in the speeches of the majority of the appellate committee of the House of Lords in R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584; and, if and insofar as it was there held that constraints upon resources were also relevant to what I will desc......
-
R (G) v Barnet London Borough Council; R (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council; R (A) v Same
...are of a higher order than this. 35 I should add a further comment regarding the assessment of needs under section 17. In R v Gloucestershire County Council, Ex p Barry [1997] AC 584 a question about the relevance of cost arose in the context of a duty to make certain arrangements where a l......
-
R (Elaine McDonald) v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council
...third: having decided what is necessary to meet those needs, is it necessary for the local authority to arrange it? 70 In R v Gloucestershire County Council, Ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, the issue was whether it was lawful for the local authority to take their resources into account in answeri......
-
Islington London Borough Council v University College London Hospital NHS Trust
... ... to it's resources: see R v Gloucester County Council ex parte Barry [1997] A.C. 584 ... Further ... v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 ; while in the same breath noting the many warnings in that case that ... economically by physical injury to another, a passage to that effect by Lord Morton of ... ...
-
A Selection of Sample Judgments
...was reduced to 1,060. But meanwhile Mr. Barry had launched an appeal on the broader question. On 27 June 1996 the Court of Appeal [1996] 4 All E.R. 421 allowed his appeal by a majority, with Hirst L.J. dissenting. The Court of Appeal granted declarations as follows: “1) By withdrawing the s......
-
Needs: Resources and Abhorrent Choices
...enforcement ofcommunity care functions. See also: RvGloucestershire,ex p Mahfood (1995) 8 Admin LR 180; RvLancashire CC, ex p RADAR [1996] 4 All ER 421; RvIslington LBC,ex p McMillan (1995) 30BMLR 20; RvPowys CC,ex p Hambridge [1998] Fam Law 136; RvEssex CC,ex p Bucke (1996)Lexis; RvCornwal......