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

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (A by his litigation friend Mejzninin) v Croydon London Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2921 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : r-a-by-his-litigation-friend-mejzninin-v-croydon-london-borough-council-2008-ewhc-2921-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 28, 2008, 09:49 AM
Article ID : 84849

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Stephen Morris QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge); 28 November 2008)

The claimant was an Iraqi asylum-seeker; he claimed to be 15 on arrival in the UK, and therefore entitled to accommodation as a child in need. The local authority assessed him as being over 17, and eventually agreed to produce a pathway plan for the claimant on the basis that he was an eligible child. The claimant argued that he was instead entitled to a care plan. The first medical report produced considered that it was more likely than not that the claimant was 17 years old; however, a subsequent, much more detailed report from a different expert concluded that the child was about 15. The local authority decision maker rejected the second report on a number of grounds, expressing doubts about such medical reports in general, and about the reliability of this expert's reports in particular.

The expert report had been produced in accordance with guidelines from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The local authority was not entitled not to consider the expert's report because of a general objection to such reports, and had not relied upon any medical evidence to demonstrate the general unreliability of this expert's reports. As long as medical reports of this type were admissible and until a clear finding that they were irrelevant, there was a duty to give them due and proper consideration. The evidence suggested that the authority had not done this, and the decision would be quashed.

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