Community Care | UK Bar

11KBW is a top-tier set housing a strong bench of highly sought-after community care specialist barristers. The team is regularly instructed in complex disputes involving procurement issues, cuts to community care services and the rights to access those services, age assessments and data protection matters. The set's barristers are also experienced in the handling of cases related to the impact of Article 8 on community care and frequently appear before the ECtHR. Members recently acted for Nottinghamshire County Council in a judicial review concerned with the high value care package provided to a child with complex health and social care needs.

39 Essex Chambers is a go-to set for community care matters, with notable depth and breadth of expertise and "detailed specialist knowledge" available at the chambers. Barristers from the set are regularly called on to represent a diverse client base, including the Official Solicitor as well as several local authorities, health authorities and individuals, in a wide range of cases. Areas of expertise for the team include Children Act challenges, matters concerning asylum seekers, age assessments and care home funding disputes. The set is frequently instructed in the most high-profile cases in the area, and its barristers have considerable experience of appearing before the Supreme Court. One interviewee states: "39 Essex Chambers has technical expertise and experience in this area of law."

Doughty Street Chambers is a market-leading set for community care matters and houses a strong bench of experienced barristers at both senior and junior levels. The set's community care practice is bolstered by its expertise in complementary areas such as social housing and human rights law, and the barristers are highly regarded for their handling of matters involving both children's services and adult social care. The team is noted for its expert representation of vulnerable individuals, and is regularly instructed in disputes involving asylum seekers and trafficked individuals, homeless children and disabled people. This expertise is reflected in R (HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, a challenge on behalf of a severely disabled woman for breaches of her right to access to effective legal remedy for her care disputes.

Matrix Chambers is recognised as a leading set for community care and human rights matters. It houses a strong bench of barristers at both senior and junior levels who are experienced in the handling of complex cases at the intersection of community care, immigration, education and prison law, and are regularly involved in the leading cases in the field. Members act for a diverse client base including local authorities, care providers, charities and central government, as well as individual claimants. Recent work includes R (NS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a High Court challenge to the adequacy of asylum accommodation.

The barristers at Garden Court Chambers are experienced in a wide range of community care matters, drawing on the set's recognised strengths in complementary areas such as public law, human rights, immigration and social housing. Members are highly adept at handling cases involving the closure of care homes and hospitals, needs assessments and the funding of community services. Disputes between social services authorities are also a key area of focus for the set. The barristers often appear before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as the ECtHR. Acting for claimants in judicial reviews has been a particularly fruitful area of work for Garden Court this year. A recent example is R (on the application of Jamal Mbarak) v Milton Keynes, an application for judicial review concerning accommodation for a minor on release from a young offenders institute. An interviewee comments: "Garden Court Chambers is very adept at handling a complex case."

Cornerstone Barristers is noted for its expert handling of a wide range of social care and health matters, and offers representation to healthcare providers, local authorities and hospitals, as well as individuals and families. The set's barristers are regularly instructed in highly sensitive judicial review challenges relating to the care of both adults and children, and age assessment disputes concerning young asylum seekers. The team is also frequently called on to advise local authorities on strategic matters involving budgets. Members recently acted in R (MU) v (1) Leicester City Council, (2) Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board, a judicial review to challenge an alleged failure to make adequate care provisions for a disabled child. A market source notes: "Cornerstone Barristers has a high degree of knowledge of the law and availability of experts at short notice."

Landmark Chambers offers significant expertise in disputes concerning the care of both adults and children. Members are regularly instructed to act on behalf of vulnerable individuals and families, as well as several local authorities, NHS bodies, NGOs and the Department for Health and Social Care. Areas of expertise for the team include challenges arising from the cutting or reorganising of community services, age disputes involving asylum seekers and care planning for individuals in custody. The set's tenants are also frequently called on to advise government bodies on social care funding issues. Ordinary residence disputes form an additional area of strength. Recently, members have been involved in Powys County Council v Betsi Cadwaladr LHB and others, a claim for restitution in respect of an alleged failure to provide a care user with NHS continuing care services.

Monckton Chambers is highly regarded for its representation of charities, public authorities, private companies and individual claimants in a wide range of social care cases. Monckton barristers are sought after for their expertise in judicial review challenges arising from cuts to community services and potentially discriminatory policies, and have experience appearing before the higher courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Recently, members were involved in R (ECPAT) v Kent County Council and Secretary of State for the Home Department, a case concerned with the duties owed to unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors crossing the Channel.