Judgment: 2001-01-19 · Court archive

Supreme Court sends ward's home care funding dispute back to High Court President

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • P.K.
  • C.K.
  • Northern Area Health Board
  • General Solicitor
  • President of the High Court
What

Supreme Court sends ward's home care funding dispute back to High Court President

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Supreme Court has directed that a dispute over funding for the home care of a severely disabled ward of court be returned urgently to the President of the High Court for a decision on how his interests should be pursued.

Mrs Justice Denham delivered judgment on January 19, 2001, in an appeal brought by C.K., the sister and carer of the ward, identified as P.K.

P.K. suffered a head injury in 1976 which affected his mental capacity and was admitted to wardship after receiving personal injury damages in 1983. He had lived with C.K. and her family for many years. His condition deteriorated severely after he developed septicaemia in 1999. The judgment records that he became blind and unable to walk, wash, dress, eat or use the toilet without assistance.

C.K. had obtained leave to seek judicial review against the Northern Area Health Board, seeking community care services or funding then said to cost about £750 per week so P.K. could remain at home.

The President of the High Court subsequently refused permission for C.K. to pursue those proceedings on P.K.'s behalf, holding that litigation concerning funding should be brought through the Committee of his Estate, then the General Solicitor. He also identified a potential conflict of interest involving C.K.

Denham J said the case had become trapped in an inappropriate procedural dispute despite its urgency. She distinguished responsibility for a ward's property from responsibility for his personal care. Although traditional practice generally placed litigation in the hands of the Committee of the Estate, she held that issues concerning care and treatment fell directly within the role of the Committee of the Person.

The Supreme Court did not authorise the judicial review itself or decide whether the Health Board owed P.K. the claimed duty. Instead, it remitted the matter to the President of the High Court to decide promptly whether P.K. should participate in the existing judicial review, whether separate proceedings were appropriate, or whether the care issue could be resolved without further litigation.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review