about us 
adviser support claiming benefits contact us disability alliance disabled students support home links membership news policy and campaigns search shop site map
R (on the application of McDonald) (Appellant) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Respondent)
7 July 2011
This Supreme Court decision concerns the right of a local authority to withdraw or amend care support where the recipient's circumstances are unchanged but where a cheaper alternative is available.
The case involved Elaine McDonald, age 67, who had a stroke in 1999 and needs support to continue living on her own in her Earl's Court flat. She has both mobility problems and problems with her bladder which mean she needs to use the toilet frequently at night.
In 2008, she fell and broke her hip and was assessed by Kensington and Chelsea as having an eligible need for support both during the day and "assistance at night to use the commode".
Once an "eligible" need is determined, a local authority must, by law, provide services to meet that need. Initially Kensington and Chelsea provided a sleep-in care worker for seven nights a week but later (December 2008) decided that it could save £22,000 a year by supplying Ms McDonald with incontinence pads for use at night and cutting care support to four-nights-a-week.
The case was taken to the High Court which found that Kensington and Chelsea Council were entitled to meet Ms McDonald’s need in a more economical manner, such as by the provision of pads.
The Court of Appeal heard the case as McDonald, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2010] EWCA Civ 1109 (13 October 2010). The Court held Kensington and Chelsea to have been in breach of their statutory duty but that since the December 2008 decision was not in fact put into operation, and since the need had been reassessed in the Care Plan Reviews of November 2009 and April 2010, the appellant had no substantial complaint.
The Supreme Court decision, R (on the application of McDonald) (Appellant) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Respondent), upheld the Court of Appeal decision.
This decision upholds a council's right to amend a care plan where a cheaper alternative is available. The key is whether the alternative is suitable. In this case the Court thought that it was.
Note: for pdf files you will need to download adobe acrobat reader. To convert the pdf to alternative formats or for more information on accessibility go to access adobe.
