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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

WELFARE: R(Chatting) v (1) Viridian Housing, (2) London Borough of Wandsworth [2012] EWHC 3595 (Admin), [2013] COPLR 108

Sep 29, 2018, 21:03 PM
Slug : welfare-r-chatting-v-1-viridian-housing-2-london-borough-of-wandsworth-2012-ewhc-3595-admin-2013-coplr-108
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 9, 2013, 04:16 AM
Article ID : 102073

(Queen's Bench Division, Nicholas Paines QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, 13 December 2012)

The elderly woman lived in a residential care home due to a number of physical and mental impediments which also meant that she lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence and care. The charity which owned the premises she lived in reorganised the arrangements for the provision of care. The woman, by her niece, acting as her litigation friend, brought a claim for judicial review against the charity, seeking a declaration that in transferring responsibility for her care to another organisation the charity were in breach of a compromise arrangement made in earlier litigation and acting in breach of the woman's rights under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

The judge dismissed the application for judicial review. On the facts, the transfer of the woman's care had not been in breach of the compromise agreement or in breach of the woman's European Convention rights.

There was no basis for saying that the local authority was under a legal duty, enforceable by way of judicial review, to make arrangements under s 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 for the woman to receive accommodation and care in a particular residential unit.

 

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