‘A High Court judge will this week hear what is being billed as the first judicial review to consider local authorities’ duties to disabled children following reforms brought in under the new Children and Families Act.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th January 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Jakimaviciute, R (On the Application Of) v Hammersmith And Fulham London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1438. Eligibility for allocation list, reasonable preference and homelessness. After a run of Court of Appeal housing decisions that might be mildly described as disappointing, it is good to see one that is definitely right, albeit apparently reluctantly given.’
NearlyLegal, 6th November 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A city council has successfully defended a High Court challenge to its decision to withdraw a wheelchair bus service.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Deciding whether a given consultation process conducted prior to some administrative decision was or was not sufficiently unfair to warrant challenge is not an easy task. Three connected problems commonly arise:
(1) did the public body provide adequate information to enable properly informed consultation
(2) was the consultation at a formative stage of the decision-making process, so it was a real rather than sham process?
(3) did the consultation encompass sufficient alternatives?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th October 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Motorists could demand the refund of more than £100m in parking fines, after what experts described as an “explosive” tribunal ruling left local government traffic officials in “absolute panic”.’
The Independent, 21st September 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘As part of its inquiry into the office of Lord Chancellor, the Constitution Committee asks whether “new” (i.e. post-2003) Lord Chancellors have actually defended judicial independence in line with their customary and now statutory duty to do so. I was asked for examples earlier this summer when appearing before the Committee (with Andrew Le Sueur and Patrick O’Brien). I tried to identify some, but rather garbled my answer. Earlier in the year I also sketched some thoughts about Lord Chancellors in Public Law, but struggled to find clear-cut examples. One reason is that collective cabinet responsibility and the confidentiality of exchanges between Lord Chancellors and judges mean that outsiders will seldom have a full picture of what has occurred behind closed doors. This is unfortunate since my impression is that many lawyers assume—mistakenly, I think—that new Lord Chancellors are neither willing nor able to defend judicial independence. This post is hopefully third time lucky in correcting this assumption. By drawing on press reports, public statements and interviews that Robert Hazell, Kate Malleson, Patrick O’Brien and I conducted between 2011-2013, I want to piece together evidence that suggests that new Lord Chancellors can and do defend judicial independence.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th August 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
Regina (Hamill) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 377
‘The statutory power to make a determination pursuant to section 91C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on an application under section 91B of that Act, could be delegated by the “chief officer of police” to a subordinate police officer of the rank of superintendent or higher.’
WLR Daily, 8th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 30th July 2014
‘CCGs may face pressure to disclose information about commissioning in at least four ways. From:
Their duties to involve the public in “planning of the commissioning arrangements by the group” (s14 Z2 National Health Service Act 2006).
Their duties to involve individual patients in “their care or treatment” (s14U National Health Service Act 2006).
Applications to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Applications for disclosure, as part of litigation brought by failed tenderers following procurement exercises.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th April 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE, summarises the important Joint Committee on Human Rights report “The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council: [2014] EWCA Civ 227; [2014] WLR (D) 119
‘The principle that a person conducting a review of a local housing authority’s decision as to what (if any) duty to provide accommodation it owed under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to an applicant could look at new matters to determine whether there was a “deficiency” in the decision for the purposes of regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 was not confined to points which the applicant could not have taken at the outset.’
WLR Daily, 7th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘R (on the application of PK) v Harrow LBC (2014) QBD Admin 30 January 2014. The Claimants were the children of M. The family was street homeless and destitute following eviction. It appears that Harrow had decided there was no duty to accommodate M, as the family was referred to Social Services.’
NearlyLegal, 9th February 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A group of UK Google users called ‘Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking’ have claimed that the tracking and collation of information about of their internet usage by Google amounts to misuse of personal information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Judge confirmed that misuse of personal information was a distinct tort. He also held that the English courts had jurisdiction to try the claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has dismissed a claimant’s argument that a London borough had a duty to use the general power of competence to provide her with accommodation and subsistence support.’
Local Government Lawyer, 26th November 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘R (on the application of MK) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council. A judicial review raising the extent of a Council’s duties and powers under s.17 Children Act 1989 and s.1 Localism Act 2011 (the general power of competence) in providing housing for someone not otherwise eligible for housing assistance.’
NearlyLegal, 26th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“Can a refuge be a ‘residence of own choice’ for the purposes of Local Authority decisions about local connection in homeless applications? This is a rare Court of Appeal decision on the issue. In addition, can a Reg 8(2) ‘minded to’ letter requirement be triggered by events during the review and after a first ‘minded to’ letter has been sent?”
NearlyLegal, 10th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has called for an overhaul of the law concerning safeguarding children. In a previous post I considered the current legislation and whether it goes far enough. I concluded that there is a need for a more general duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate abuse of minors over and above the existing welfare duty in s11 of the Children Act 2004.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 8th November 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Five disabled people have won their court of appeal bid to overturn the government’s decision to abolish the independent living fund (ILF).”
The Guardian, 6th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Interest- Rate Hedge Products (‘IRHPs’) include a variety of different products sold to customers to help protect them against interest rate risk. The down side is that such products are often complex and structured to produce adverse financial effects for the customer if the Bank of England Base Rate (‘Base Rate’) goes down. And we all know that is exactly what has happened in recent years. This has given rise to a wave of IRHP mis-selling claims.”
Littleton Chambers, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“The positive duty on the state (the police) to avert a real and immediate risk to life or injury, pursuant to articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was not limited to identified or identifiable persons. It was sufficient that such potential victims were known or should be known to exist; and it made no difference that the risk arose during an incident which had already commenced.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025