Appellants were long-term patients in a home run by LCF & sought judicial review of LCF’s decision to close the home. Argued that they had been promised a ‘home for life’ in their current accommodation, that the decision to close the home was in breach of art.8 of ECHR & that this was so even though alternative accommodation in community-based units would be provided. Majority of residents had been placed there by social services departments of their local LA or health authority. Placements were paid for by the authorities & made under statutory powers, which provided that the accommodation could be provided ‘in house’ by LA itself or contracted out. Lord Woolf gave judgement & followed Donoghue. If the LA itself provided accommodation, it would be performing a public function & where it made arrangements for the accommodation to be provided by LCF. Did not however mean that LCF should be regarded as performing a public function to fall under HRA. Weighed up factors & concluded that LCF should not à mere fact of public funding didn’t determine whether the functions were public or private. There was no evidence of there being a public flavour to the functions of LCF or LCF itself, which did not exercise statutory powers in caring for As.