the first was
correctly identified on your show, the most recent was the result of a recent literature survey apparently undertaken precisely for the
purpose of bolstering the original 97 % estimate.
Four issues had been
identified by the parties: (i) whether the Court of Appeal had
correctly held that the 2009 and 2010 care plan reviews were to be read as including a reassessment of the claimant's community care needs; (ii) whether the authority's decision to provide pads interfered with the claimant's Art 8 rights and, if so, whether such an interference was justified and proportionate; (iii) whether the authority had been operating any relevant policy or practice for the
purposes of s 21E (1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) and, if so, whether that policy was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, namely the equitable allocation of limited care resources; and (iv) whether the authority had failed to have due regard to the needs specified in s 49A of DDA 1995 (the general disability equality duty) when carrying out their functions in the instant case.