Pardoes bring Judicial Review proceedings against Local Authority in respect of Care Costs on behalf of paraplegic Claimant.

Guy Eskell, specialist in Clinical Negligence work and member of the Law Society's Clinical Negligence panel issued judicial review proceedings against Plymouth City Council on behalf of, and as litigation friend for, the Claimant who because of his injuries, lacks capacity to litigate on his own behalf.

The Claimant, a disabled road accident victim was just nine when he was struck down by a private ambulance. As a result he was left paraplegic and dependant on constant care. Eleven years after the accident he was awarded £1,139,000 compensation payout for his injuries. Part of the award was applied in buying, adapting and equipping a suitable home for the Claimant, with the balance being invested. The Claimant had no other capital and no income save for the state benefits to which he was entitled, amounting to approximately £180.00 per week, and the income from the invested fund, approximately £26,000 per annum, gross.

The Claimant claimed he was being unlawfully charged for his care by Plymouth City Council, their stance being that his income from that award - about £700,000 of it remains invested in the Court of Protection - should be taken into account when assessing his entitlement to free non-residential care. The total charge for day services which the authority provided the Claimant in the instant case normally amounted to approximately £163 per week.

The issue of charging the Claimant for his non-residential care was not in dispute, but Mr Guy Eskell argued the Council had "blindly applied" guidelines and "unlawfully fettered" its own discretion over whether or not the Claimant should be made to contribute towards his care.

The challenge was dismissed by Mr Justice Holman who said the Council had explained that due to the "considerable budgetary pressures" posed by the city's ageing population its policy is to charge for care services "where it is permitted to do so... in order to maximise the services that can be provided".

During the hearing, the Judge was told that the Council was now in the process of reviewing its policy on whether damages awards should be taken into account for care charging purposes.

Although the High Court dismissed the accident victim's appeal, it was still a great achievement to successfully pursue this case all the way to the High Court for a Judicial Review.

For full details, please see the Law Report [2009] ALL ER (D) 122 (Dec) and Judgment [2009] EWHC 3279 (Admin)

Summary also available here