Judgment: 2001-01-19 · Court archive

Supreme Court sends Cabra ward’s home-care case back for urgent High Court review

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • P.K.
  • C.K.
  • Northern Area Health Board
What

Supreme Court sends Cabra ward’s home-care case back for urgent High Court review

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Caragh Road
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

C.K. obtained leave in April 2000 to seek judicial review against the Northern Area Health Board. Those proceedings were later stayed because some of the issues involved the rights of the Ward and therefore required authorisation through the High Court’s wardship jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has directed an urgent reconsideration of whether legal proceedings should be pursued to secure additional home-care support for a Ward of Court living with his sister in Cabra, Dublin.

The Ward, identified as P.K., had suffered a head injury in 1976 and was made a Ward of Court in 1983. After a serious illness in 1999 involving septicaemia and gangrene, he returned to his home at Caragh Road unable to walk, wash, dress, feed or use the toilet without assistance. Medical advice before the court supported his remaining at home.

His sister, C.K., and her household were providing much of his care but required substantial outside assistance. Correspondence placed before the Supreme Court said privately funded professional and domestic care was costing about £750 per week, while available health board and Irish Wheelchair Association assistance fell well short of the level considered necessary.

C.K. obtained leave in April 2000 to seek judicial review against the Northern Area Health Board. Those proceedings were later stayed because some of the issues involved the rights of the Ward and therefore required authorisation through the High Court’s wardship jurisdiction.

She then sought directions from the President of the High Court, including permission concerning the litigation. That application was refused, partly because C.K. was committee of the Ward’s person rather than committee of his estate.

Mr Justice Geoghegan held that this procedural issue should not have ended the matter. As committee of the person, C.K. had a legitimate role in raising questions concerning the Ward’s care and maintenance. The President could have considered whether proceedings should instead be brought through the committee of the estate.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for urgent consideration of both the merits and the appropriate procedure. It did not decide whether proceedings against the health board should ultimately be brought or whether the board was legally required to fund the requested home care.

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