header-logo header-logo

15 May 2015
Issue: 7652 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

NHS

R (on the application of Whapples) v Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group [2015] EWCA Civ 435, [2015] All ER (D) 245 (Apr)

The claimant appealed against the judge’s decision, refusing her application for judicial review of the defendant clinical commissioning group’s refusal to pay for a private flat in which she would receive NHS continuing healthcare. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care 2012 did not, in circumstances where a patient was receiving NHS continuing healthcare in his own home, generally contemplate that the NHS would be responsible for defraying the costs of that accommodation. Accordingly, the judge had correctly concluded that the framework had not dictated the outcome sought by the claimant.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll