Wolverhampton Council, R (On the Application Of) v South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group and Shropshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2018] EWHC 1136 (Admin) (26 March 2018)

Wolverhampton Council, R (On the Application Of) v South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group and Shropshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2018] EWHC 1136 (Admin) (26 March 2018)

Shropshire CCG had no statutory power to fund VG's care at AALPS because no concluded arrangement was made while VG was registered with a Shropshire GP, and thus VG was not a person for whom Shropshire CCG had responsibility under the NHS Act 2006 and associated regulations. Any such funding would have been ultra vires.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1136 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Wolverhampton Council; First Defendant: South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group; Second Defendant: Shropshire CCG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Preliminary Issue Hearing
Outcome
Claim against Shropshire CCG dismissed on the preliminary issue; Shropshire CCG had no power to fund VG's care at AALPS.
Legal Topics
NHS Continuing Healthcare, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires, Public Body Responsibilities
Administrative Law Health Law Public Law NHS Continuing Healthcare Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires Public Body Responsibilities

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wolverhampton Council

Claimant

South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group

First Defendant

Shropshire CCG

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Preliminary Issue Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Shropshire CCG had the statutory power to fund care for VG at AALPS under the NHS Act 2006 and associated regulations
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'arrangement' under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 2012 Regulations
  3. 3 Responsibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare funding after a change in GP registration

Ratio Decidendi

Shropshire CCG had no statutory power to fund VG's care at AALPS because no concluded arrangement was made while VG was registered with a Shropshire GP, and thus VG was not a person for whom Shropshire CCG had responsibility under the NHS Act 2006 and associated regulations. Any such funding would have been ultra vires.

Court Disposition

Claim against Shropshire CCG dismissed on the preliminary issue; Shropshire CCG had no power to fund VG's care at AALPS.

Orders

  • Claim against Shropshire CCG stayed or dismissed; parties to reconsider positions regarding remaining issues.