British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >>
Felden Croft Nursing Home Ltd v National Care Standards Commission [2002] EWCST 81(NC) (18 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2002/81(NC).html
Cite as:
[2002] EWCST 81(NC)
[
New search]
[
Help]
Felden Croft Nursing Home Ltd v National Care Standards Commission [2002] EWCST 81(NC) (18 November 2002)
Felden Croft Nursing Home Ltd
v
National Care Standards Commission
[2002] 0081.NC
ORDER
Upon hearing Counsel for the Appellant and Leading Counsel for
the Respondent.
It is Ordered by Consent and the Tribunal directs:
- that the total number of service users to be accommodated in
the Felden Croft Nursing Home, Longcroft Lane, Hemel Hempstead,
Hertfordshire shall not exceed 33 at any one time.
- that the categories of service user to be included on the Register
shall be OP (old age not falling into other category), TI (terminally
ill) and PD (physical disability).
- that service users shall not be accommodated in the home unless
they come within one or other of the following categories:
OP (old age not falling within any other category
TI (terminally ill) – restricted to 7 service users
PD (physical disability)
and
are being provided with care within one or other of the following
descriptions:-
Post acute or intermediate
Respite
Palliative care for the terminally ill
Rehabilitation
Long term
Rosemary Hughes
Bridget Graham
Paul Thompson
Application for a costs order under regulation 24
- 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.
- The Tribunal considered the application carefully. 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:
- 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 requre a resolution by the Tribunal
in this case;
- We were aware that in their reply to the appeal dated 13 August
2002, the Respondents had mentioned section 3 (3) (a) of the
Care Standards Act. This states that an establishment cannot
be both an independent Hospital and a Care Home. However, the
Appellants were clearly still concerned about their defined
status under the Act and whether or not that should be as an
Independent Hospital or a Care Home with Nursing. The Respondents
did not point out at the August directions hearing that the
Appellant’s case was misconceived in this respect and we noted
that both parties apparently accepted the need to prepare the
case to include the definition of palliative care in the context
of the statutory definition of an Independent Hospital.
NO ORDER AS TO COSTS
18 November 2002
Signed
Rosemary Hughes. Chairman.