header-logo header-logo

06 May 2022
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

Tragic consequences of unlawful policy

80827
Questions have been raised over what the Health Secretary knew and when following the High Court’s decision that thousands of elderly patients were unlawfully discharged into care homes without being tested for COVID-19

The claimants Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris both lost their fathers to the virus, which claimed more than 20,000 care home residents between March and June 2020 in England and Wales.

Ruling in R (Gardner & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 967 (Admin), Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Graham held the secretary of state’s decision on admissions policy on 17 and 19 March and 2 April 2020 were unlawful. The reason was the policy, which did not require testing to take place before patients were moved, failed to take into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission, even though this risk had been explained by Sir Patrick Vallance from as early as 13 March.

Since the judgment was handed down last week, the former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, has stated he was not provided soon enough with information about asymptomatic infection.

Writing in NLJ this week, however, John Ford, director of Sinclairslaw, which represented claimants Dr Gardner and Ms Harris in the case, says: ‘The judgment does not support this. The public law claim strikingly succeeded because there was no evidence that the minister had consulted anyone about how residents in care homes were to be looked after and protected following the discharge of hospital patients, some of whom may have been infected with the virus.’ 

Ford discusses the duty of candour, concluding: ‘It strains credibility to accept that the defendants gave proper disclosure in this case.’

He adds that his clients sought only declarations and it will be for the forthcoming public enquiry to establish exactly what happened and make recommendations.

 

Issue: 7977 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll