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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
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