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
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (G) v Southwark London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 877

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : r-g-v-southwark-london-borough-council-2008-ewca-civ-877
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 15, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85059

(Court of Appeal; Pill, Rix and Longmore LJJ; 29 July 2008)

By a majority the court dismissed the child's application for judicial review, concluding that the local authority had been entitled to decide that, even though the child was unable to live with the mother and had no other home, he was a child who required help with his accommodation, rather than requiring accommodation as a child in need. The distinction between those two classes of child was lawful, even though not expressly drawn in Children Act 1989, s 20. The social services department had therefore been entitled to refer the child to the housing department, which had proceeded to house the child as a person in priority need; the social services department had not been under an obligation to provide the child with accommodation, and thereafter to treat him as a 'looked after' child.

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