Knowledge (XXG)

YL v Birmingham CC

Source 📝

127:
21 of the 1948 Act and that their fees are, either wholly or partly, paid by the local authorities or, where special nursing is required, by health authorities. But the fees charged by Southern Cross and paid by local or health authorities are charged and paid for a service. There is no element whatever of subsidy from public funds. It is a misuse of language and misleading to describe Southern Cross as publicly funded. If an outside private contractor is engaged on ordinary commercial terms to provide the cleaning services, or the catering and cooking services, or any other essential services at a local authority owned care home, it seems to me absurd to suggest that the private contractor, in earning its commercial fee for its business services, is publicly funded or is carrying on a function of a public nature. It is simply carrying on its private business with a customer who happens to be a public authority. The owner of a private care home taking local authority funded residents is in no different position. It is simply providing a service or services for which it charges a commercial fee.
123:. To express in summary terms my reason for so concluding, Southern Cross is a company carrying on a socially useful business for profit. It is neither a charity nor a philanthropist. It enters into private law contracts with the residents in its care homes and with the local authorities with whom it does business. It receives no public funding, enjoys no special statutory powers, and is at liberty to accept or reject residents as it chooses (subject, of course, to anti-discrimination legislation which affects everyone who offers a service to the public) and to charge whatever fees in its commercial judgment it thinks suitable. It is operating in a commercial market with commercial competitors. 126:
27. A number of the features which have been relied on by YL and the intervenors seems to me to carry little weight. It is said, correctly, that most of the residents in the Southern Cross care homes, including YL, are placed there by local authorities pursuant to their statutory duty under section
95:, violated EHCR Article 8 and the human rights of an elderly resident by giving her only 28 days' notice to leave after a family disagreement. Southern Cross had been paid to care for residents in Birmingham City, with families contributing to the cost. 103:
Even though most residents were placed in the nursing homes by local authorities under a contract with the company, this did not make the company a public authority under
219: 115:
26. My Lords, on both the issues to which I have referred I have reached the same conclusion for much the same reasons as my noble and learned friends
138: 76: 32: 80: 187: 120: 213: 91:
YL claimed that Southern Cross Ltd, a large private company running nursing homes in
164: 52: 116: 92: 104: 166:
YL v. Birmingham City Council& Ors [2007] UKHL 27
58: 48: 38: 28: 23: 112: 144:R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust 8: 20: 156: 220:United Kingdom constitutional case law 7: 14: 139:United Kingdom constitutional law 110:Lord Scott said the following: 16:2007 UK constitutional law case 1: 236: 63: 130: 77:UK constitutional law 43:Praxien Technologies 24:Praxien Technologies 72:YL v Birmingham CC 79:case, concerning 68: 67: 33:UK House of Lords 227: 195: 194: 192: 188:"EHCR Article 8" 184: 178: 177: 176: 174: 161: 21: 235: 234: 230: 229: 228: 226: 225: 224: 210: 209: 204: 199: 198: 190: 186: 185: 181: 172: 170: 163: 162: 158: 153: 135: 101: 89: 81:judicial review 75:(UKHL 27) is a 64:Judicial review 17: 12: 11: 5: 233: 231: 223: 222: 212: 211: 208: 207: 203: 200: 197: 196: 179: 169:, 20 June 2007 155: 154: 152: 149: 148: 147: 141: 134: 131: 121:Lord Neuberger 100: 97: 88: 85: 66: 65: 61: 60: 56: 55: 50: 46: 45: 40: 39:Full case name 36: 35: 30: 26: 25: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 232: 221: 218: 217: 215: 206: 205: 201: 189: 183: 180: 168: 167: 160: 157: 150: 145: 142: 140: 137: 136: 132: 129: 128: 124: 122: 118: 111: 108: 106: 98: 96: 94: 86: 84: 82: 78: 74: 73: 62: 57: 54: 51: 47: 44: 41: 37: 34: 31: 27: 22: 19: 182: 171:, retrieved 165: 159: 146:EWCA Civ 587 143: 125: 114: 113: 109: 102: 90: 71: 70: 69: 42: 18: 202:References 117:Lord Mance 93:Birmingham 214:Category 133:See also 105:HRA 1998 99:Judgment 59:Keywords 49:Citation 173:30 June 53:UKHL 27 191:(PDF) 151:Notes 107:s 6. 87:Facts 29:Court 175:2021 119:and 216:: 83:. 193:.

Index

UK House of Lords
UKHL 27
UK constitutional law
judicial review
Birmingham
HRA 1998
Lord Mance
Lord Neuberger
United Kingdom constitutional law
YL v. Birmingham City Council& Ors [2007] UKHL 27
"EHCR Article 8"
Category
United Kingdom constitutional case law

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.