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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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

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 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:
   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 requre a resolution by the Tribunal in this case;
   2. 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.