Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT/LOCAL AUTHORITY: Buckinghamshire County Council v Kingston upon Thames Royal Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 457

Sep 29, 2018, 18:24 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA457
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 16, 2011, 10:15 AM
Article ID : 95033

(Court of Appeal; Pill, Patten and Munby LJJ; 19 April 2011) 

An adult with epilepsy and learning difficulties arrived from Uganda as child and the first local authority placed her in a home run by National Society for Epilepsy (NSE) within the area of the second authority.  The first authority continued to pay for this under deeming provision, which provided that she was ‘ordinarily resident' in first local authority immediately before residential accommodation provided. In an annual review the adult expressed a wish to move into supported living with friends and a bungalow nearby was identified as suitable, and she duly moved there. The first local authority sought to transfer responsibility for community care services to the second local authority but the second local authority argued the decision to move her was unlawful because the first authority had failed to consult them. Judge ruled move had been lawful, in that the first authority had no duty to act fairly towards second authority.

Appeal dismissed. There was no legal basis upon which a duty of fairness as between authorities could be identified when exercising powers in performance of a duty to a vulnerable adult. Court could not create such a duty.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from