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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

CARE/JUDICIAL REVIEW: P v London Borough of Hackney [2007] EWHC 1365 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:14 PM
Slug : p-v-london-borough-of-hackney-2007-ewhc-1365-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 16, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87485

(Queen's Bench Division; Andrew Nicol sitting as deputy judge of the High Court; 9 July 2007)

The local authority had assessed the 12 year-old autistic child's needs and found that they would be best met by the grandmother, supported by the local authority. The authority also concluded that the child should not attend the residential school favoured by the mother, but should continue to attend at the current day school. The child by his litigation friend the mother applied for judicial review of the decision claiming that the authority had failed (1) to complete an adequate assessment of needs under s 17 Children Act 1989 (2) to complete an adequate assessment of the mother as carer under several statutes (3) to complete an adequate care plan in relation to the child and/or the mother and (4) to provide arrangements for services to the child as a child in need and a disabled child and/or services to mother as carer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed: it was not unlawful for the authority to have policies so long as they were not applied rigidly and individual circumstances were taken account of, as in this case. The decision to refuse funding for a residential school place was not irrational. The authority had carefully considered the facts and addressed measures logically to them. The mother had refused the authority's offer of direct payments in respect of care services for the child under s 17 Children Act 1989, preferring that the authority provide the services directly. The authority had not behaved unlawfully in making the offer in view of the fact that there were no available carers with the appropriate experience to meet the child's needs.

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