Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: B v Southwark London Borough Council [2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : b-v-southwark-london-borough-council-2006-ewhc-2254-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 18, 2006, 05:23 AM
Article ID : 89013

(Administrative Court; Andrew Nicol QC sitting as Deputy Judge; 18 September 2006)

Quashing a decision by the local authority not to provide further support under s 23C or s24A of the Children Act 1989, to a former relevant child whose appeal against removal on Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (European Convention) grounds had not yet been resolved, the judge held that, in the absence of a decision from the immigration authorities, the local authority could dismiss the claimant's objection to returning to Uganda only if it decided that the claimant's Art 8 of the European Convention application was manifestly unfounded. That had not been established by the authority enquiry. Reconsideration by the local authority would not necessarily lead to the same result. There was a continuing duty to provide a personal adviser and to review a pathway plan, even if the local authority was precluded from giving support or assistance, although the functions in each case would be very much truncated because of that restriction on the authority's powers.

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