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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (H) v Essex County Council [2009] EWHC 353 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : r-h-v-essex-county-council-2009-ewhc-353-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 27, 2009, 09:06 AM
Article ID : 86255

(Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court); Sir George Newman; 27 January 2009)

The grandparents had applied for a residence order allowance to assist them with the cost of the care and accommodation they were providing for the child. The local authority policy stated that such allowances would not be considered in retrospect, which the authority interpreted as meaning that no allowance would be granted if the child were already living with the applicant under a residence order when the application was made. The grandparents made a number of applications, all of which were rejected. The grandparents sought judicial review of the most recent rejection of the application. A judge concluded that it was strongly arguable that the policy in question was unlawful, because the discretion granted by Children Act 1989, Sched 1, para 15.1 extended to situations in which a child 'lives or is to live with a person as a result of a residence order'. A new policy was introduced, and the grandparents were awarded an allowance under that new policy. The grandparents sought to have the allowance backdated to their original application, instead of to the date of the first refusal of their most recent application, and persisted with the judicial review.

The judicial review should not continue, because no issues arose in connection with the new policy. The court noted some concerns about the new policy's use of the term 'exceptional circumstances', but stated that such issues had no bearing on this case, as the grandparents had now been granted an allowance under the new policy. If there were policies in other local authorities similar to the original policy in this case, those other local authorities should be aware that in operating a bar on applications for residence order allowances after the granting of the residence order, they ran the risk of a determination that they were operating an unlawful policy. Backdating the allowance in this case to the refusal of the most recent application for the allowance was not arbitrary; the earlier applications and refusals were not before the court. It was no part of the court's function to investigate earlier refusals, about which there had been no complaint at the time.

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