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...
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

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council; R (M) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1445

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : r-a-v-croydon-london-borough-council-r-m-v-lambeth-london-borough-council-2008-ewca-civ-1445
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 8, 2009, 08:36 AM
Article ID : 88653

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Maurice Kay LJJ and Sir John Chadwick; 18 December 2008)
In each case the local authority had concluded that the applicant was over 18, and therefore not a 'child in need' for whom they had a duty to provide accommodation under Children Act 1989, s 20. In each case the asylum process had concluded that the applicant was under 18. The applicants sought judicial review of the authorities' decisions. The judge held that age determinations by the respective local authorities were not contrary to European Convention on Human Rights, Art 6(1), that Art 8 was not engaged, that the question whether an individual was a child for the purposes of ss 17 and 20 of the 1989 Act was not one of precedent fact that the court could review on a balance of probabilities, and that the authorities had lawfully departed from the decision by another body as to the applicant's age. The applicants appealed, arguing that the authorities' decisions had breached their human rights, in particular because the age determination had been carried out by local authority employees, not by an independent body, and that the issue of age in this context was one of precedent fact.

The determining question in the doctrine of precedent fact was the supposed intention of Parliament. In this case, Parliament must have intended the local authority to take all the relevant decisions. For s 20 to operate effectively social workers had to decide the age of the applicant. Child in need was a composite phrase, and being a child in need was not a limiting condition stated in wholly objective terms. The nature and process of the decision required the implication of words into s 20 so that it read 'Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any person whom the local authority have reasonable grounds for believing to be a child in need'. The provision of accommodation under s 20 could not be classified as a civil right, to which Art 6 applied. If it were to apply, judicial review would provide in any event an effective cure for any lack of impartiality on the part of the social workers concerned. There was no need for local authorities to contract out issues of age determination to independent experts; age determination in this context was not a simple question of fact but required a measure of professional knowledge or experience.

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