A disabled man who lost a High Court challenge over cuts to his care package will have his case heard in the Court of Appeal next month.
Luke Davey’s case was dismissed by Justice Morris earlier this year, who found no “relevant legal error” in Oxfordshire council’s decision to reduce his weekly personal budget by 42%.
Davey, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is wheelchair dependent, had argued that the council had breached its Care Act duties to promote his wellbeing. He said the care reduction posed a direct risk to his wellbeing because it could mean he would spend more time alone, which would cause him anxiety, and also risked losing his care team of 18 years.
Free legal learning on the Care Act
Alex Rook will examine the implications for practice of case law under the Care Act and provide advice on responding to challenges to your decisions, at this year’s Community Care Live London.
His session forms part of our new Legal Learning Hub, providing a one-stop-shop for all your training on the law. Register now for your free place at the event, on 26-27 September.
He is appealing on the grounds that the judge made “very significant errors” when rejecting his argument that a risk to his wellbeing would arise if his team of personal assistants broke up because of the proposed reduction in their pay, terms and conditions.
Justice Morris dismissed this argument for two reasons. He concluded there was “no sufficient evidence” that the changes in pay and terms and conditions had, or would, result in a break-up of the team of personal assistants, and that the council had considered that such a change would actually be positive for Davey and his emotional wellbeing.
Davey will argue that nowhere in his assessment and care plan did the council suggest it held this view, and that there is evidence that it accepted a change in his care team would pose considerable risks to his wellbeing. He will also argue that, in reaching his conclusion, the judge made statements about the law that are “wrong or liable to be misunderstood”.
The case will be heard on 17 August.