RESIDENTS of the first-established Leonard Cheshire home for the disabled are to take their test case fight to keep their "homes for life" straight to the House of Lords.

The three residents of the Le Court home near Petersfield are challenging a decision of the Leonard Cheshire Trustees in September last year to "redevelop" the home, replacing it with a 16-bed nursing home for highly dependent patients.

Many of the existing 42 long-term residents face being farmed out to new "community-based units" in the surrounding area.

But, in a ruling of enormous importance to sector care providers and others, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton ruled the charity was not "a public body" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act.

The charity was thus not "susceptible to judicial review", a remedy which has historically been confined to decisions of public bodies and has been held not to be apply to private schools, private hospitals and other private sector service providers.

Yet the judge recognised the vital importance of his decision when he took the rare step of certifying that the case raised issues of "general public importance" suitable for consideration by the House of Lords.

He granted a "leap-frog" order – by-passing the Court of Appeal – and the residents' lawyers may now directly petition the Law Lords for a full appeal hearing.

Lawyers argued that, as most of the residents at Le Court are funded by local authorities, the charity was effectively performing hybrid public/private functions that make its decisions susceptible to challenge by judicial review.

But the judge ruled that – despite his "considerable sympathy" for the residents – he had no power to consider their judicial review challenge as the law now stands.

He added that there was nothing to stop the residents now launching charity proceedings, alleging that the trustees' plans amount to a breach of the charitable trust under which Leonard Cheshire Homes – Britain's leading voluntary sector provider of care for the disabled – was established.

The residents' solicitor, Mr Paul Conrathe, said later the issue of whether private bodies increasingly taking over traditionally public sector functions were susceptible to review by the courts was "absolutely vital".

He said that, if the residents win their case in the House of Lords, private hospitals, private schools, private nursing homes and even privatised industries such as Railtrack may find their decisions being challenged in court.

Mr Conrathe said he took "enormous encouragement" from the judge's decision to certify a point of general public importance fit to be considered by the Law Lords.

Counsel for the three, Richard Gordon QC, told the judge in April that the charity's decision amounted to closure of the home "in its present form".

The plans had been floated without proper assessment of his clients' care needs, he argued, while the decision itself contradicted an alleged "homes for life" promise.

Mr Gordon told the court: "The essential promise was that, subject to deteriorating health care needs, those residents who came to Le Court could stay for the rest of their lives if they wanted to."

Le Court was the first disabled centre established by Group Captain Leonard Cheshire more than 50 years ago, and is the largest home run by the charity.

The judicial review challenge was mounted by three residents, Elizabeth Heather, (47), Martin Ward (76), and Hilary Callin.

Mrs Heather requires constant nursing care but is still mentally alert, although unable to walk and having problems with speech. She moved into Le Court 19 years ago.

Mr Ward was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis around 30 years ago, and moved into the home in September 1983. Although his condition affects him physically, he remains mentally alert.

For its part, the charity insists there have never been any "home for life" promises made to residents.

Mr James Goudie QC, for the charity, said no decision had been taken to move any of the individual residents and the much-needed redevelopment would take place by an "evolutionary process" over the next four to five years.