Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from