|
summary of court of appeal judgement @ http://www.lawreports.co.uk/DLN/2005/CACIV/julf0.1.htm
For the purposes of s 3(1)(e) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and the reference there to "facilities", a local health board was entitled to provide, for example, a non-nursing day centre, or a hydrotherapy pool, where it thought it appropriate to provide those facilities as part of the health service.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing the appeal of the claimants, Paul Keating and others, from a decision of Moses J of 23 March 2005 <2005> EWHC 559 (Admin) refusing their application for judicial review against the defendant, Cardiff Local Health Board, in relation to its refusal to provide funding for the Riverside Advice Ltd, of which the claimants were clients. Riverside was a service which was running a project to help those with mental health difficulties. The grounds of appeal were, inter alia, that the judge adopted an over-restrictive construction of s 3(1)(e) of the 1977 Act , which provides: "It is the Secretary of State's duty to provide throughout England and Wales, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements — ...(e) such facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service." The Secretary of State for Health was permitted to intervene and substantially supported the claimants' case on appeal.
BROOKE LJ said that the word "facilities" in s 3(1)(e) of the 1977 Act could be interpreted as including not only the accommodation, plant and other means by which services were provided or by which they more readily achieved their purpose, but also as including human beings who actually provided the services referred to in that sub-section. The meaning of "facilities" would be derived from the context in which the word was used. It meant "that which facilitates", and sometimes the word referred to tools, or accommodation, or plant, which facilitated the provision of a service; sometimes it referred to an entire service provision, like a laundry service, or the provision of a day care centre, which facilitated the prevention of illness, or the care of persons suffering from illness, or the after-care of persons who had suffered from illness. It would be absurd if the statutory provision were to be construed so that the authority was limited to providing the accommodation and the "plant", and somebody else had to provide the personnel to run the facility. Accordingly, the defendant was lawfully able to provide funding for services like the Riverside project if it considered it appropriate as part of the health service.
ARDEN and LONGMORE LJJ gave concurring judgments.
|
