The first respondent had substantial care needs. The issue was whether these should be met in residential accommodation provided by the local authority, or in her own home, by her husband, the second respondent, supported by a substantial care package. The first respondent lacked capacity to decide that question for herself. The local authority, which brought the proceedings, contended for residential care, the respondents initially for home care. Having regard to the various expert evidence, and carrying out the necessary balancing exercise under Art 8 ECHR between the welfare needs and safety of the first respondent and the respect both respondents were entitled to with regard to their home and private and family life, the Court accepted the local authority's case that it was in the first respondent's best interests to remain in residential accommodation with on-going contact with the second respondent. Kelvin Rutledge QC appeared for the local authority.