Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

London Borough of Hackney v Williams and Another [2017] EWCA Civ 26

Sep 29, 2018, 19:41 PM
Public law children – Emergency protection order – Parents brought proceedings against local authority – Whether there had been a breach of the duty under s 6 of the HRA 1998
The local authority appeal from a decision finding it had breached s 20 of the Children Act 1989 was allowed.
Slug : london-borough-of-hackney-v-williams-and-another-2017-ewca-civ-26
Meta Title : London Borough of Hackney v Williams and Another [2017] EWCA Civ 26
Meta Keywords : Public law children – Emergency protection order – Parents brought proceedings against local authority – Whether there had been a breach of the duty under s 6 of the HRA 1998
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 27, 2017, 04:09 AM
Article ID : 113664

(Court of Appeal, Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, McFarlane, Burnett LJJ, 26 January 2017)

Public law children – Emergency protection order – Parents brought proceedings against local authority – Whether there had been a breach of the duty under s 6 of the HRA 1998

The local authority appeal from a decision finding it had breached s 20 of the Children Act 1989 was allowed.

The parents, of 8 children placed in local authority care, pursued the local authority, claiming misfeasance in public office, race discrimination, negligence and breach of duty owed pursuant to s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. After a 6-day hearing the judge dismissed the actions for misfeasance, discrimination and negligence but found that the local authority had failed to comply with its statutory duty under the Children Act 1989 and were liable to pay damages for breach of Art 8 of the European Convention. The parents were each awarded £10,000 in damages. The local authority appealed.

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the claim brought under s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 should have been dismissed.

Insofar as breach of statutory duty under s 20 was concerned it was necessary for the claimants to go further than establishing that the actions of the local authority fell short of what, subsequently identified, good practice might require; the authority must be seen to have acted in breach of the terms of the statute. Furthermore, on the basis that the lawfully imposed bail conditions on the parents (not to have unsupervised contact with the children) prevented the parents from providing accommodation for the children, the finding that the retention of the children in police protection after the period of 72 hours was unlawful and, equally, that such retention constituted a breach of the parents' Article 8 rights should be reversed. The interference was in accordance with the law and necessary for the protection of the health or the rights and freedoms of others. It followed that there was no breach of s 6 of the 1998 Act and damages should not have been awarded under s 8.

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 26
Case No: A2/2015/3251
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Sir Robert Francis Q.C. sitting as a deputy High Court Judge
HQ13X03397
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 26/01/2017
Before:


THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(SIR BRIAN LEVESON)
LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
LORD JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:


LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY
Appellant


- and -


(1) JOHN WILLIAMS
(2) ADENIKE WILLIAMS
Respondent


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Ali Reza Sinai (instructed by Dawn Carter-McDonald, Legal and Democratic Services, London Borough of Hackney) for the Appellant
Christine Cooper and Eirwen Pierrot (instructed by Sky Solicitors, Ilford) 
for the Respondents


Hearing date : 23 November 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment Approved

London Borough of Hackney v Williams and Another [2017] EWCA Civ 26.rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from