A GROUP of disabled residents at the original Leonard Cheshire care home, now under threat of what they claim amounts to closure, were never given a binding promise that this would be their "home for life", London's High Court heard.

Counsel for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, James Goudie QC, said the alleged "home for life" promise had been misinterpreted by lawyers for three residents of the Le Court care home.

Any such pledge was intended to convey the promise of "support for life", rather than a commitment to maintaining residents in a specific building for life, he said.

This was particularly relevant in the case of Le Court, which was rebuilt as far back as the 1950s and is in acute need of refurbishment so as to comply with current care standards.

At the start of the hearing, counsel for the residents, Richard Gordon QC, claimed the "promise" meant that residents who came to Le Court "could stay for the rest of their lives if they wanted to".

But Mr Goudie said there was no "absolute assurance" in place that residents would be able to stay at Le Court indefinitely "as long as he or she wished, whatever the circumstances".

This judicial review challenge has been mounted by three residents of the home: Elizabeth Heather (47), Martin Ward (76) and Hilary Callin (42). All are long-term residents and suffer from varying degrees of disability.

Le Court, Greatham, was the first disabled care centre established by Group Captain Leonard Cheshire in the aftermath of World War Two, and is the largest home run by the charity. It has a capacity for 50 residents in all.

Under fire in the case is a decision by the charity to "redevelop" the home, creating a 16-bed nursing home for "highly-dependent" residents.

Mr Gordon claimed this amounted to a decision to close down the home in its present form, causing "great unhappiness and uncertainty" among the occupants.

But Mr Goudie emphasised there had been "no decision" to relocate the existing residents. The development was to be an "evolutionary process", with no-one affected for another four to five years.

There was to be continuing consultation over this period, with intensive assessments of all residents' care needs before any final decision "as to the future provision of care", he told the court.

Any decision taken by the charity was, in any event, not susceptible to judicial review, said Mr Goudie, since the Leonard Cheshire Foundation is not a "public" body.

There was no sense in which the charity "stood in the shoes of the state" as claimed by Richard Gordon, he said.

The charity did not perform public functions in relation to the residents and any contracts agreed with public authorities were based on charitable ojectives and had "no statutory basis".

At the end of the three-day hearing Mr Justice Stanley Burnton reserved his judgement in the case, saying he would give his ruling as soon as possible.