Supreme Court to hand down landmark community care ruling next week

The Supreme Court will next week hand down a landmark ruling on the scope of social services’ duty of care to provide residential accommodation and support to vulnerable adults in need of care and attention.

The respondent in the case of SL v Westminster Council is an Iranian national. He arrived in the UK in 2006. His asylum claim was based on his fear of persecution on account of his sexual orientation.

In January 2007, his claim was refused. He became homeless in October 2009. In December 2009, apparently after learning of the death of his partner in an Iranian prison, he attempted to kill himself. He was admitted to a mental health unit. He was discharged on 27 April 2010, diagnosed as suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The respondent 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.

Since approximately August 2010, the respondent has had weekly meetings with a care co-ordinator, Mr Wyman, employed by the appellant local authority, who offers him advice and encouragement, and generally monitors his condition and progress. Mr Wyman has arranged contact with counselling groups and the respondent’s “befriender”.

In March 2011 SL was granted indefinite leave to remain. He has since been eligible for a range of state benefits, including accommodation under the Housing Act 1996.

The Court of Appeal, which decided nevertheless to hear the case because of its wider importance, overturned the decision of the High Court.

Ruling in favour of the respondent, it found that the services SL was receiving from his mental health social worker did amount to ‘care and attention’, and therefore led to the duty to accommodate. SL was also receiving services he could not provide himself, the court found.

Westminster appealed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether for the purpose of section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act:

  • The respondent was in need of “care and attention”? If so,
  • Was it “otherwise available to him”?

The Supreme Court – comprising Lords Neuberger, Kerr, Mance, Carnwath and Lady Hale – heard the case on 28-29 January 2013. The judgment will be handed down on 9 May.

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws concluded that ‘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”.

Writing a previous of the case on the UK Supreme Court blog, Helen Mountfield QC said: “As the Court of Appeal noted, the wider the concept of care and attention, and the looser the nexus between the care and attention needed and the provision of accommodation, the more onerous will be the duty of local authorities under s. 21(1)(a)."