A HIGH Court judge has hit out at the costs of an extraordinary squabble between two local authorities over who should pay for the care of a disabled man.

Judge Milwyn Jarman QC criticised the fact public money had been spent in the dispute between Worcestershire County Council and Neath and Port Talbot Council.

The High Court was told that the 49-year-old man, who cannot be identified, requires round-the-clock care after he suffered life-changing injuries in a road accident.

But those responsible for him have struggled to find a suitable place for him to live so he has been moved several times between Birmingham, Worcestershire and Neath.

Initially the responsibility of Worcestershire Primary Care Trust, NHS funding ceased in 2009, leading to the costly dispute between the two councils over who should now pay.

Last year, the Department of Health ruled that the cost should fall on the Welsh council, because the man had been “ordinarily resident” in its area when the NHS funding stopped.

That was despite the fact that the man had soon afterwards been moved into the Worcestershire area.

Neath and Port Talbot Council then applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the decision, arguing that health bosses had been wrong to land it with the huge bill for funding the lifetime of care the man will need.

Too much weight had been placed on a previous decision that Neath was liable for the costs up to August 2009, when new evidence could now be taken into account, it argued.

The man only moved to Neath in the first place because of difficulties with his previous accommodation and his family had wanted him in Worcestershire where they could visit him more ea-sily, Judge Jarman was told.

But, ruling that Neath must bear the costs, the judge then lamented the expenditure of public money on the case.

He said: “It is very unfortunate that so much money has been expended in litigation including three parties, each of which has a responsibility to the public purse, arguing about who should fund the care of a person in need.

“Much, if not all, of the legal costs of the case could have been saved if better documentation had been provided when the case was first referred to the Department of Health in 2010, he said.

“That, in itself, may have involved a bit more cost, but such a cost pales into insignificance when compared to the cost of this litigation and the public who is paying for each of the parties may well have cause for concern,” he concluded.

After the hearing a spokesman for Worcestershire County Council said: “It is important that individuals receive the best care to meet their needs.

“It is important to be clear that the Judicial Review proceedings were brought by Neath and Port Talbot Council against the Secretary of State, not by or against Worcestershire County Council.”