A DECISION to "close down" the first-established Leonard Cheshire home for the disabled threatens the security of all its residents and breaks a promise that they would have "homes for life", London's High Court heard on Monday.

Three residents of the Le Court home at Greatham, 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 residents".

Their counsel, Richard Gordon QC, said the decision amounted to closure of the home "in its present form", although adding: "We can argue semantically about whether it's a decision to close or redevelop".

The decision was also a direct infringement of residents' rights under Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life, said Mr Gordon.

"To make a decision to move people from a home they have come to value over the years is a breach of Article Eight," he told Mr Justice Stanley Burnton.

The plans had been floated without proper assessment of his clients' care needs, he added, while the decision itself contradicted the "home for life" promise allegedly made by the Leonard Cheshire charity.

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.

"The reality in this case is that promises of a home for life at Le Court were being given on a widespread basis to all the residents. The evidence in the present case shows that each of the claimants was in fact made a promise."

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. It has capacity for 50 residents in all, of whom 33 are nursing and 17 residential.

The judicial review challenge is being 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 aso, and moved into the home in September 1983. Although his condition affects him physically, he remains mentally alert.

Mr Gordon said there were some 42 long-stay residents at the home, all of whom had lived there for many years.

He added: "It is no good saying that this is a decision which will have no immediate effect and will come into force by an evolutionary process over the coming years.

"What is clear is that the decision is having, and will continue to have, a profound emotional effect on the residents."

The decision meant that most of the residents would have to "move on", said Mr Gordon.

"It is going to cause great uncertainty, great unhappiness, and great anxiety."

Lawyers for the three residents must cross a major legal obstacle in establishing that the Leonard Cheshire charity is susceptible to a judicial review challenge, since it is not a public body.

But Mr Gordon claimed that, in exercising its functions in this case, the charity had taken on the role of a virtual public body, particularly since the affected residents' places were funded by local authorities.

Mr Gordon said it was not his case that Leonard Cheshire was a "standard public authority".

But he claimed that in undertaking "contractual arrangements" with local authorities and public health bodies the charity had "assumed responsibility for a class of persons who would otherwise be the direct responsibility of the state".

The hearing continues.