Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
View all articles

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (Liverpool City Council) v Hillingdon London Borough Council and AK [2009] EWCA Civ 43

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : r-liverpool-city-council-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-and-ak-2009-ewca-civ-43
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 10, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86253

(Court of Appeal; Rix, Dyson and Wilson LJJ; 10 February 2009)

The young person from Pakistan arrived in the UK illegally and with a false passport; he sought asylum, claiming to be 15 years old. The local authority conducted an age assessment, concluding that he was 18 years old, and that was therefore not a child in need. The young person was referred to the relevant government agencies, and was accommodated in adult detention centres. An immigration judge subsequently accepted expert opinion stating that the child was 15 years old. A dispute arose as to whether the age reassessment that was now necessary should be conducted by the original local authority, or by a second local authority, that is the local authority in whose area the detention centre lay. The dispute was not resolved, but the second local authority, in whose area the young person had been living, taking note of the young person's expressed wish to return to the original local authority area, paid for him to do so. The original local authority, without conducting another age assessment, and without accepting that the young person was a child in need, maintained and accommodated the young person. The original authority issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that the second local authority was under a statutory duty to conduct an age assessment, and to provide accommodation pending such an assessment and a mandatory order requiring the second authority to do so. The judge considered that the original authority was now under a duty to the young person.

The court allowed the appeal of the original authority. The second authority had become responsible for the young person when he was discharged within their area. The second authority had not discharged its duty under s 20; it had not considered the young person's welfare needs or made any assessment of his needs, it had merely consulted his wishes, which were to be given 'due consideration' under s 20, but which were not determinative. A local authority should reach the conclusion that the child's wishes were decisive only as part of an overall judgment including an assessment of the child's welfare needs, and the type and location of accommodation that would meet those needs. This had not been a proper discharge of the s 20 duty, and amounted to a failure to perform the duty at all. The second authority was to undertake an age assessment and, if it decided that the young person was a child, was to provide accommodation, which could be, as at present, with a foster parent in the area of the first authority. The question as to whether it was possible for two local authorities to have a concurrent duty towards a child remained open.

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