R (Nassery) v Brent LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 539 (Ward, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ): the council had reached a rational conclusion that, whilst the claimant might require care and attention in the future on account of a deterioration in his fragile mental health, he did not have any current need for care and attention, for example […]
Case Law The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal and ors (Public Law Project and JUSTICE intervening) [2011] UKSC 28 (click here for transcript). The Court unanimously decided that permission for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal should only be granted where the criteria for a second-tier […]
Orlic v Croatia [2011] ECHR 974. Mr Orlic had rented a flat from the Croatian government and occupied it with his family. In 2000 a domestic court found that the tenancy had been wrongly granted to him, he had no right to remain, and a possession order was made. In 2004 he was evicted. He […]
London Borough of Hillingdon v Steven Neary (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor), Mark Neary and the Equality and Human Rights Commission[2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) (Peter Jackson J): Steven Neary is a 21 year-old man who has childhood autism and a severe learning disability. He lived with his father, Mark Neary, and received a […]
On the 16th May 2011, the Department of Health published Statement of Government Policy on Adult Safeguarding. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is made clear that No secrets: guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abusewill remain as statutory guidance “until at least 2013”. Meanwhile, however, […]
R (O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2011] EWHC 679 (Admin)(Blair J): although the local authority’s decision-making process had been lawful in the main, its conclusion, despite changed circumstances, that O should not be placed at a residential school with a 24-hour/52-week curriculum had been irrational and required to be reconsidered. Click here for the […]
R (W) v Birmingham CC [2011] EWHC 1147 Admin (Walker J): the council’s decision to restrict eligibility for adult care services to critical needs only had been unlawful because (1) in breach of section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the material provided to decision makers contained no attempt to assess the likely adverse […]
R (O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2011] EWHC 679 (Admin)(Blair J): although the local authority’s decision-making process had been lawful in the main, its conclusion, despite changed circumstances, that O should not be placed at a residential school with a 24-hour/52-week curriculum had been irrational and required to be reconsidered. Click here for the […]
