Elaine McDonald has limited mobility because of a disability. She is not able to use the toilet or sink on her own. Local authorities in London granted her night care in the beginning of March 2007. However, on November 21, 2008, the same authorities informed her that the night care would be revoked and replaced with a set of diapers and waterproof sheets. This move was intended to save the government 22,000 GBP per year.

Ms. McDonald filed a complaint, saying that the authorities were wrong in their assessment of her needs. Moreover, she argued that the decision revoking her night care violated her dignity, resulting in a breach of the right for respecting one's private life, protected by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. The complaint was dismissed and Ms. McDonald filed an appeal.

Between November 2009 and April 2010, another review of the decision on aid for people with disabilities was made. The conclusion, as it related to this case, was that the use of diapers fulfilled the sanitary needs of Ms. McDonald. Waiting for the decision of the appellate court, Ms. McDonald came to a settlement with the authorities, who granted her with night care for four to five nights per week, while her partner would take care of her during the other nights. The appellate court concluded that during the period Ms. McDonald was provided with diapers and waterproof sheets, from November 2008 to November 2009, the local authorities failed to fulfill their duty to provide her with proper care. The court found, however, that the authorities rectified the injustice by reaching a settlement with Ms. McDonald. Because of this, the complaint of a violation of Article 8 was deemed unjustified. An appeal to the Supreme Court was also unsuccessful. The Supreme Court found all the needs of Ms. McDonald to have been sufficiently met. In 2011, the authorities revoked the night care completely.

Ms. McDonald then turned to the European Court of Human Rights, accusing the authorities of violating Article 8 by revoking her care, and also noted that using diapers was a violation of her dignity. The judges in Strasbourg concluded, like their British colleagues, that her right for private life was undoubtedly violated during the period between November 2008 and November 2009 (judgment from May 20, 2014, case 4241/12). The Court found no legal basis for revoking a benefit granted earlier, and the cessation of night care in 2008 was unlawful. The applicant was granted compensation totaling 1,000 euros.

As for the period after November 4, 2009, the Court ruled that the decision not to grant night care was legal. Interfering with the right for respect of private life was justified by the economic interests of the state and the interests of other people benefiting from the care. The judges had to decide if the interference was "necessary in a democratic state," especially because the necessity was defined by the state's economic interests. They reiterated that the state has great discretion when it comes to social care, elderly care and health care, especially on the issue of granting funds. Therefore, the judges found themselves not competent in assessing the authorities' decision on how to distribute their budget.

The Court concluded that the local authorities (by regularly reviewing their decision) and the courts have sufficiently weighed the applicant's interest against the interests of other people benefiting from social care. The judges have also noted that the applicant was not deprived of her right to care, only the form in which it was granted, and that said care was changed to be less convenient but equally efficient. The decision to revoke night care was deemed by the Court not onerous enough to constitute a violation of her rights. They found that during the period following November 4, 2009, no violation of Article 8 occurred.

The Court said it was important for the state to always take into account human dignity and the right for private life any time social aid is being revoked, and acknowledged that authorities must always find a balance between a local community's budget requirements and the rights and needs of individual beneficiaries.