HMRC v Mr Abubaker Arrbab [2024] EWCA Civ 16
The mandatory reconsideration scheme for tax credits was held to be ultra vires. The case is now a leading authority on the constitutional right of access to justice and has significant wider implications for vulnerable benefit claimants.
R (TMX) v London Borough of Croydon and SSHD [2024] EWHC 129 (Admin)
The local authority’s failings in the provision of accommodation, care and support for a person severely impacted by progressive multiple sclerosis breached Articles 3 & 8 ECHR; guidance on interplay between Care Act 2014 and s95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
R (TW) v Essex County Council [2024] EWHC 264 (Admin); [2023] 1 W.L.R. 3439
Guidance on whether a local authority may make accommodation for homeless 16 and 17 year-olds available only on a non-Children Act 1989 s.20 basis and whether 16 and 17 year-old children in need can be asked to choose between non-s.20 accommodation or being looked after in s.20 accommodation.
R v Maher v First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors [2023] EWHC 34 (Admin)
The Court held that the mental health tribunal’s previous blanket policy of refusing to provide reasons to victims was unlawful and amounted to unlawful discrimination.
ECPAT UK & Brighton & Hove City Council v SSHD & ors [2023] EWHC 1953 (Admin); (2023) 26 CCLR 357
The placing of unaccompanied asylum-seeking (UAS) children in hotels rather than into local authority care across the country through the statutory National Transfer Scheme was unlawful. Also at [2023] EWHC 2199 (Admin); (2023) 26 CCLR 615.
Derbyshire NHS Foundation Trust v Secretary of State for Health & Social Care [2023] EWHC 3182 (Admin)
The court refused to grant declarations sought by a hospital trust that a responsible clinician need not conduct a face-to face-examination prior to making certain orders under Mental Health Act 1983.
R (TT) v Essex County Council [2023] EWHC 826 (Admin); [2023] 1 WLR 2429
This was a case about whether a local authority can stipulate that certain accommodation which is available for homeless young people will not be provided under s20 of the Children Act 1989.
R (BC) v Surrey County Council [2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
The claimant should have been recognised as a looked after child under section 20 Children Act 1989 and was owed duties as a care leaver.
R (HZ & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 660 (Admin); [2024] 1 W.L.R. 1003
On the duties owed to families accommodated through the Afghan resettlement schemes.
T(A child) [2021] UKSC 35
Supreme Court judgment dismissing the appeal of T, a 15-year old, and holding that the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty in cases such as this is permissible, but expressing grave concern about its use to fill a gap in the child care system caused by inadequate resources.
R (on the application of AA) v The London Borough of Southwark [2020] EWHC 2487 Admin; (2020) 23 CCL Rep 649
This was a High Court challenge to an assessment of children in need, where the social worker had disbelieved that the family was destitute. It is one of a growing number of ‘culture of disbelief’ cases concerning local authorities’ attitudes towards destitute migrant families. The High Court was persuaded to quash the assessment, as the court found serious flaws in the process and the social worker’s conclusions.
IO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 3420 (Admin)
The Secretary of State failed to apply her Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy when deciding that the claimant who was mentally unwell should be dispersed to accommodation in a different area.
OA v London Borough of Camden and the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2357
Successful challenge under s. 17 Children Act 1989; significant analysis of EU law rights of 4-month-old baby, and derived rights of his mother by way of an extension of the Zambrano principle in Court of Justice of European Union.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 148 (Admin)
Systemic challenge to delays in the process of making “conclusive grounds” decisions in respect of potential victims of human trafficking
R (MN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 3268 (QB)
Standard of proof to be applied in determining whether there are “conclusive grounds” to believe that person is a victim of trafficking.
R (K and Anr) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2951 (Admin); R (MXY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2780 (Admin)
Successful challenge to the Home Secretary’s cut of weekly subsistence for certain victims of trafficking. The High Court quashed the cuts, restoring payments to more than 1000 victims and £1million + in back payments to those affected by the cuts.
R (Mustafa) v Kent County Council and the Home Office [2018] EWHC 2025 (Admin)
First case to consider the definition of an “asylum seeker” as a matter of EU Law subsequent to the coming into effect of the Asylum Procedures Directive in 2013, in the context of a “former relevant child” seeking accommodation and support under the Children Act 1989.
R (KI) v London Borough of Brent [2018] EWHC 1068 (Admin)
Successful judicial review challenge to the failure by the London Borough of Brent to recognise a young person as a “former relevant child” under the Children Act 1989.
R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council and North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group, MIND intervening [2018] EWCA Civ 2852
Leading case on whether, and in what circumstances, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities owe a duty to detained mental patients to provide them with after-care support in the community when they are permitted to temporarily leave the hospital for activities and therapy. Permission is pending to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
R (DA and Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018]
Acted for the intervener, Shelter, in the Supreme Court challenge to the legality of revised benefit cap, arguing that the cap unlawfully discriminates against lone parents with young children. Judgment is awaited.
R (AS) v Kent County Council [2017] UKUT 446
Leading case on use of dental assessments for the purposes of age assessment.
