Clare Parry

Chambers has 19 members with specific expertise in this area of practice.  They range from 2 silks, through a number of senior juniors to the more junior end of Chambers.  Chambers seeks to ensure that it has strength, quality and breadth of experience to provide a centre of excellence in this field.  On the strength of Chambers’ growing reputation in these fields work has increased substantially over the last five years with chambers’ social services database now containing in excess of 350 solicitors.

All members of Chambers are grounded in public law principles with a large majority of the work done involve judicial review proceedings (often of major strategic decisions eg care home closure).  Chambers is a recognised for its expertise in judicial review.  Members appear regularly in London and also the regional centres at Birmingham, Cardiff Leeds and Manchester

Some specific examples of work undertaken in the last few years for local authorities:

• Landmark community care cases: R(McDonald) v RB Kensington & Chelsea (SC 2011)  on resources and domiciliary care provision. Could a  LA provide incontinence pads rather than a night-time carer to a stroke victim?
• Services to children: the age assessment litigation
• Issues between departments: G v Southwark LBC
• Services to care leavers: SO v Barking and Dagenham
• ‘Services to adults in asylum support cases. Members were in the key cases of M v Slough B.C.  and  Westminster C.C. v NASS on LA provision to destitute asylum seekers.
• Assessment duties: the Restormel cases; Ireneschild; R (NM) v Islington LBC and Northamptonshire CC.
  
• Mental health cases. AK v R.B. Kensington & Chelsea;  R (on the application of Nassery) v Brent London Borough Council (Admin).
• Court of Protection: Manchester CC v G and E
• PII: Reading Justices and re a Solicitor (Wasted Costs)
• Ability of Local Housing Authority to use B&B accommodation for homeless applicants Hance v LB Croydon
• Turf wars: Liverpool CC v Hillingdon LBC;   Greenwich v Bexley
• Budget cuts and the DDA:  Tiller v East Sussex CC
• Consultation: Windsor and Maidenhead Fire Station

Chambers also has acknowledged expertise in Social Housing issues where members have been involved in many major test cases in the last few years eg the Hillingdon/Liverpool dispute and where obligations for care lie: age assessments etc. Expertise in this area informs decisions made for adult care provision.

More recently, chambers has been heavily involved in cases involving the local authority issues of the moment, namely

• Budget cuts
• The DDA and the Equality Act
• Consultation issues
• Charging
• Jurisdiction disputes between departments, between local authorities, with health services and with central government.
• Court of Protection