Court of Appeal finds for council in first appeal on Care Act 2014 provisions

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a severely disabled man’s appeal over a decision by a county council to reduce his personal budget from £1,651 per week to £950 per week and to revise his care and support plan.

The case of Davey, R (on the application of) v Oxfordshire County Council & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1308 was said to be the first time the Court of Appeal had considered the provisions of the Care Act 2014.

In February 2017 a High Court judge, Mr Justice Morris, dismissed Luke Davey’s claim.

Mr Davey, 41, appealed three findings by the judge. Mr Justice Morris had concluded that:

• Oxfordshire did not fail to consider the effect of the claimant being expected to spend three periods of two hours per day alone upon his ability to engage in social activities; there was thus no breach of Section 1 of the Care Act 2014 or other unlawful act; (ground 2c)
• The council did have regard to the need to ensure that decisions about the claimant were made having regard to all Mr Davey’s individual circumstances and thus acted in compliance with its duty under Section 1(3)(d) of the 2014 Act; (ground 3)
• It had not been established that Oxfordshire had failed to evidence its contention that the proposed rates for personal assistants providing care to the claimant were reasonable or compatible with its obligations under the 2014 Act. (ground 4)

The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened, as did Inclusion London, a charity run by and for deaf and disabled people.

Lord Justice Bean, with whom Lady Justice Thirlwall and Lord Justice McFarlane agreed, dismissed the three grounds.

“As Morris J rightly observed, it is understandable that the Claimant, Mrs Davey and other members of his family objected to the updated needs assessment, which has resulted in a substantial reduction in the level of the claimant's personal budget,” he said.

“Like the judge, I have great respect for the manner in which the Claimant, his family and his team of carers cope with his difficult situation. But that is not the same thing as holding that the Council's actions have been unlawful. For these reasons, essentially the same as those of Morris J in his meticulous and comprehensive judgment, I would hold that the Council have not acted unlawfully.”