This is a somewhat technical question. I've been reading up on the law related to CHC assessments and in particular the rulings of the Coughlan case. When I compare this ruling to the CHC assessment process described in the NHS Guidance for CHC funding, it strikes me that the conditions under which the Guidance suggests CHC funding should be granted (two "severe"s in the DST, etc) are, in fact, far more stringent than those required under Coughlan. So I'm wondering if the current Guidance has ever been subject to judicial review on this basis. I can find no suggestion that it has been so I'm guessing that, if challenges have been brought on these grounds, then they've been resolved at Health Ombudsman level, maybe because the NHS would prefer to fold at that point, rather than risk losing at judicial review. Does anyone have any more specific knowledge in this area? I've found it hard to search the Health Ombudsman web site for information this specific.