Verna Wilson & Ors, R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

Verna Wilson & Ors, R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

The applications for judicial review were dismissed because the authorities had properly considered the risks of increased mortality associated with moving elderly/dementia residents, as evidenced by the material and expert reports before the decision-makers. There was no legal requirement to conduct individual assessments before deciding to close the homes; such assessments are required before any resident is moved. The authorities' processes and assurances satisfied Article 2 ECHR obligations and were not Wednesbury unreasonable. The VAT error in Havering's financial calculations was immaterial and did not affect the lawfulness of the decision.

Parties
Claimants: Verna Wilson and Others; First Defendant: Coventry City Council; Claimants: Victor Thomas and Others; Second Defendant: London Borough of Havering; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing: Permission and Substantive Applications
Outcome
Applications for judicial review dismissed; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants; directions given for possible wasted costs application.
Legal Topics
Care Home Closure, Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Individual Risk Assessments, Judicial Review Procedure, Costs Orders, Wasted Costs Applications
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Local Government Law Care Home Closure Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Wednesbury Unreasonableness Individual Risk Assessments Judicial Review Procedure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verna Wilson and Others

Claimants

Coventry City Council

First Defendant

Victor Thomas and Others

Claimants

London Borough of Havering

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing: Permission and Substantive Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local authorities' decisions to close care homes breached Article 2 ECHR (right to life) due to increased mortality risk for elderly/dementia residents
  2. 2 Whether failure to conduct individual risk assessments before closure decisions was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the authorities failed to take into account material considerations or acted unreasonably (Wednesbury)

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for judicial review were dismissed because the authorities had properly considered the risks of increased mortality associated with moving elderly/dementia residents, as evidenced by the material and expert reports before the decision-makers. There was no legal requirement to conduct individual assessments before deciding to close the homes; such assessments are required before any resident is moved. The authorities' processes and assurances satisfied Article 2 ECHR obligations and were not Wednesbury unreasonable. The VAT error in Havering's financial calculations was immaterial and did not affect the lawfulness of the decision.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review dismissed; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants; directions given for possible wasted costs application.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted but substantive applications dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to defendants, subject to legal aid status of claimants.