England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Mental Health Care (Wirral) Ltd (Acrefield House) v National Care Standards Commission [2002] EWCST 41(NC) (14 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2002/41(NC).html

---

[New search] [Help]

---

Mental Health Care (Wirral) Ltd (Acrefield House) v National Care Standards Commission [2002] EWCST 41(NC) (14 November 2002)

Mental Health Care (Wirral) Ltd Re: Acrefield House
v
National Care Standards Commission
[2002] 0041.NC

ORDER

Upon hearing Counsel for the Appellant and Leading Counsel for the Respondent.

It is Ordered by Consent:

1. The Tribunal confirms the Respondent’s decision of 3^rd April 2002 that LD (learning disability) is the applicable category of service user in relation to Acrefield House, Prenton, Wirral.
2. The Tribunal directs pursuant to section 21(5)(C) of the Care Standards Act 2000 that the following conditions have effect in respect of Acrefield House, 2 Acrefield Road, Prenton, Wirral, namely;

1. The number of persons for whom residential accommodation (with personal care) is provided at any one time shall not exceed eighteen (18)
2. Only adults (aged 18 – 64 years) whose primary disability is learning disability may be accommodated.

The original of this ORDER was signed by Counsel for the Appellant, Counsel for the Respondent, and the President of the Care Standards Tribunal, and dated 13^th November 2002.

Judge David Pearl
Susan Last
Jim Lim

Application for a costs order under Regulation 24

1. Subsequent to the agreed ORDER in this matter, Leading Counsel for the Respondent sought an order for costs under Regulation 24 requiring the paying party to make a payment to the receiving party to cover costs incurred by the receiving party. The application was resisted by Counsel for the Appellant.
2. The Tribunal took time to consider the application. Its discretion to make a costs order is triggered by a decision that a party has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings. It formed the view that the Respondent had failed to establish that the Appellant had acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings. Accordingly, it dismissed the application; for the following reasons:
   1. No decisions have yet been made by the Tribunal on the appropriate interpretation to place on various aspects of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No 9 (England) and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3852), and therefore it is arguable that the uncertainty did require a resolution by the Tribunal in this case;
   2. Leading Counsel for the Respondent in his submissions stated: "This response [B4] dealt with the claim that there should be both an extension of categories and conditions. It did not sufficiently challenge a central tenet of the appellant’s solicitors case which was that the identification of categories could be treated as having the same effect as the imposition of conditions of registration." Further "The Commission’s response [B4] did not sufficiently deal with the fallacy at the heart of the Appellant’s case and therefore requires some modification." Thus, the Respondent’s submissions have moved somewhat during the course of the preparation of this case
   3. At the Preliminary Hearing of this and other cases, this case was not identified by Leading Counsel for the Respondent as one that was in any way different from any of the other cases that were dealt with at that stage, and thus the Tribunal had no opportunity of reminding the parties of the existence of Regulation 24, and indeed of issuing a costs warning.

NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

His Honour Judge David Pearl
President
14^th November 2002.