Westminster given permission to take 'care and attention' case to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has given Westminster City Council permission to appeal a ruling on the circumstances in which social services departments owe a duty to provide accommodation and support to vulnerable adults in need of care and attention.

The Court of Appeal decision in SL v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 954 was hailed by claimant solicitors as a very significant and helpful decision for many vulnerable people, particularly those with mental health problems.

However, Westminster insisted that the decision was wrong, saying it would look to take the case to the Supreme Court. It was given permission to appeal last month by a panel comprising Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Sumption.

The case centred on ‘SL’, an Iranian failed asylum seeker, who became homeless in October 2009.

In December 2009, after learning of the death of his partner in an Iranian prison, he attempted suicide and was admitted to hospital as an in-patient where he was diagnosed as suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

SL argued that, on discharge from hospital in April 2010, he required accommodation and support from Westminster City Council social services.

Under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities must make arrangements for the provision of residential accommodation for adults in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them.

The Court of Appeal overturned a decision by the High Court, ruling that the services SL was receiving from his mental health social worker amounted to ‘care and attention’ as his social worker was monitoring his mental state at weekly meetings and arranging for him to receive counselling and the services of a befriender, services he could not provide for himself.

Lord Justice Laws said ‘care and attention’ within the legislation was not limited to acts done by the local authority’s employees or agents. He added that the legislation also did not envisage any particular intensity of support in order to constitute ‘care and attention’.

The judge suggested that ‘care and attention’ is not ‘otherwise available’ unless it would be “reasonably practicable and efficacious to supply it without the provision of accommodation”.

Lord Justice Laws said it would be absurd for Westminster to provide a programme of assistance and support without also providing the “obviously necessary basis of stable accommodation”.

SL was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK during the course of the case, which made him eligible for accommodation under the Housing Act 1996, but the Court of Appeal decided to hear the case because of its wider importance.