|
Landmark Health and Social Care Insight
|
This is the latest update on developments in health and social care law from Landmark Chambers. We hope you will find this briefing useful; please feel free to forward it to your colleagues.
Editors: David Lock QC, Samantha Broadfoot QC, Leon Glenister and Hannah Gibbs.
Assistant Editor: Faryal Shafi
Click here to make an enquiry or for further information about our specialist public law barristers.
Please be advised that the information contained within this newsletter does not constitute legal advice. Click here for details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| What should local authorities do in the case of looked after children under 16 who are placed in unregulated settings after 9 September 2021? An analysis of the recent Tameside MBC decision [2021] EWHC 2472 |
| Samantha Broadfoot QC |
| As a result of new Regulations, it is unlawful for local authorities to place a child under the age of 16 in unregulated accommodation. There is a chronic shortage of accommodation which complies with the Regulations and this change will leave many local authorities without anywhere lawful to place some looked after children. |
|
|
|
|
The recent decision in MBC v AM & Ors (DOL Orders for Children Under 16) [2021] EWHC 2472 (Fam) held that a deprivation of liberty in an unregulated placement was nonetheless lawful, but there are arguments that this decision is wrong. It is arguable that to allow DOL in these circumstances amounts to a breach of the placed child’s Article 5 rights (since it is not lawful under domestic law) and that the Court, as a public authority, is unable to make such an order. In addition, there is a potential question relating to the vires of the regulations themselves insofar as they conflict with the paramountcy principle in s.1 of the Children Act 1989.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COVID and the developments on funding social care
|
| Leon Glenister |
| This article presents some brief updates on the current funding arrangements for the provision of adult social care services in England and discusses these considering the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic. It considers the legal framework behind the government’s latest policy on social care and health reform. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Two-child benefit rule held lawful |
| Yaaser Vanderman |
| In R (SC, CB and 8 children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & ors [2021] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court held that the two-child rule (contained in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016) limiting key subsistence benefits to two children per household, was lawful. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Council’s charging policy held unlawful as it discriminated against severely disabled persons |
|
|
Griffiths J held the Council’s new charging policy (“the Charging Policy”) unlawful, because it discriminated against severely disabled people contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1. The Charging Policy affected the severely disabled disproportionately compared with people who were disabled but not severely disabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Review and Courts Bill: A commentary on the new powers in relation to quashing orders and abolition of the rule in Cart
|
| David Lock QC and David Elvin QC |
| The Judicial Review and Courts Bill 2021 introduces new powers in relation to quashing orders thereby permitting the courts to suspend, postpone and limit and/or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders. |
|
|
|
|
Although the proposed amendments make the exercise of the new s29A powers mandatory, when deciding an adequate redress, it still leaves to the discretion of the court whether to exercise its s29A powers or be bound by the presumption in 29A(9).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The COVID-19 Inquiry: Preliminary thoughts on its scope and efficacy
|
| Alex Goodman |
| A public inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is scheduled to commence in 2022. However, for the inquiry to deliver on the dual goals of fact-finding and lesson-learning, it needs to be prompt, which ultimately depends on its scope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
An overview of the legal framework for paying GP practices for premises costs
|
| David Lock QC |
| NHS GP practices have to provide and fund their own premises from which to provide NHS primary care services. NHS commissioning contracts can contain terms allowing GP practices to claim premises payments as part of their overall payment arrangements. |
|
|
|
|
Public Law at Landmark Chambers
|
Public law involves the rules that govern the way all aspects of government interact with citizens, companies, non-governmental organisations, public bodies and other governments.
It covers everything from the grant of telecommunication licences to major corporates, all aspects of the law of the NHS, through to the rules affecting the detention of asylum seekers.
Each area has its own complex set of rules but there are overriding principles of public law which govern how public bodies are required to act. Our public lawyers have, between them, a huge depth of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Can NHS Trusts seek s106 funding from developers to meet the costs of extra patients arising from a housing development? |
| Speakers: Tim Mould QC, David Elvin QC, David Lock QC and David Forsdick QC |
|
An introduction to how NHS bodies may be able to seek funding to cover additional costs arising from housing developments. Is this compatible with the CIL regulations and is it permissible?
How does NHS funding work and how should NHS Trusts be funded for extra patients arising from a housing development.
Is this really permissible? An examination of the counter-arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
