Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

On need and gatekeeping - R (G) v Barnet London Borough Council; R (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council; R (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2004] CFLQ 331

Sep 29, 2018, 17:56 PM
Title : On need and gatekeeping - R (G) v Barnet London Borough Council; R (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council; R (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2004] CFLQ 331
Slug : on-need-and-gatekeeping-r-g-v-barnet-london-borough-council-r-a-v-lambeth-london-borough-council-r-w-v-lambeth-london-borough-council-2004-cflq-331
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Sep 22, 2011, 05:43 AM
Article ID : 96045

This note examines the significant House of Lords' decisions on section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989), and to whom the rehousing obligations of local authorities under the CA 1989 are owed. In particular, the note considers Lambeth's policy, which survived House of Lords' scrutiny, of offering accommodation only to children in need, without their family. It is argued that these decisions make the 'general duties' in section 17(1) irrelevant; also, paradoxically, housing legislation gives greater protection to households with children than the CA 1989.

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