THE daughter of a 93-year-old pensioner has lost a bitter High Court legal battle with Worcestershire County Council over her care - in a landmark outcome which has national implications.

Your Worcester News can reveal how taxpayers' have been spared a hefty bill after council chiefs took an extraordinary dispute over the elderly woman all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Mary Walford, from Stourport, had gone into care back in 2006 with her daughter Glen Walford renting a flat in London.

The daughter had argued that the Stourport family home, known as Sunnydene, should not be used to fund any care costs because she still kept a bedroom and office there.

Miss Walford, a theatre director, also said she'd intended to live there in later life and had contributed to the maintenance of the property since her dad died in 1983, leaving her mum a widow.

The county council originally allowed the situation to stand, but changed its mind in March 2012 and wrote to the Miss Walford, saying the Stourport home should be taken into account and used to fund her elderly mum's care.

A two-year judicial review led to the High Court siding with Miss Walford in February 2014 in a landmark ruling but a fresh Court of Appeal verdict has overturned it, meaning the value of the house must be taken into consideration to pay the care fees.

Your Worcester News also understands Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt intervened at some point in the process, with the council using care law to argue its case.

Under the law anyone with capital of more than £21,000 is asked to contribute to their care after an assessment, but property can be disregarded under certain circumstances, like if a partner or relative over 60 lives there, either in 'whole or part'.

Miss Walford's case was that she regarded the Stourport house as her 'family' home, and is also a pensioner herself, but the Court of Appeal has overruled the High Court's stance.

Today the council welcomed the decision, saying they are grappling with "ever increasing demands" on public money.

A spokesman said: "This was an important legal challenge and we are pleased the Court of Appeal ruled in our favour.

"There are ever increasing demands being made on the public purse and it is important decisions about how public money is used to support individuals are fair and consistent.

"We had to pursue legal action because we believed in this case the council had no legal duty to fund the cost of care."

Experts have warned that the outcome of the bruising battle is likely to reverberate elsewhere.

Charlotte Kelly, an associate at Worcestershire legal firm Kerwoods, said: "This was a very significant judgement and one which will affect many in similar situations.

"This is a very complex area which will affect an increasing number of people.

“The whole care fees issue can be a bit of a nightmare, especially where loved ones are involved and emotions are running high.

"This case was very finely balanced with the Appeal Court judges split two to one."