Anita Rao considers the Court of Appeal decision in Re Z (a child)  EWCA Civ 157, giving guidance on who bears the burden of paying for translating documents in court proceedings.
If the young person wishes to challenge the age assessment he has to then obtain legal advice and, if appropriate, see an interim injunction. Sometimes the interim relief is applied for after the young person has been dispersed.
The 2 applicants in these cases that were heard together were from Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively. There was nothing remarkable about the facts of either case. Both raised factual issues that are to be tried by the Upper Tribunal, however, Popplewell J ordered that a ‘rolled up’ hearing to consider the challenge to LBC’s practice.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths considers the decision of the Administrative Court in R (S) v Croydon LBC  EWHC 265 and the duty on local authorities to accommodate a young person pending the determination of an age assessment.
On 26 January 2017, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in London Borough of Hackney v Williams and anor  EWCA Civ 26, departing from a long chain of Family Court judgments highlighting the necessity for local authorities to obtain the informed consent of parents prior to accommodating children under section 20. In a landmark judgment, the Court of Appeal held that although obtaining parental consent was good practice, and that the guidance of the High Court should be followed, the necessity for consent did not have the full force of law and could not found an action in damages under the Human Rights Act.
Permission to appeal was sought by the parents, arguing that this is a case of considerable public importance. The divergence of opinion at High Court and Court of Appeal level has created a lack of clarity as to the status of the earlier established guidance of the Family Court, and is likely to have significant implications for social work practice and the protection of vulnerable children.
In January 2017, the High Court handed down judgment in AP (by his litigation friend, BA) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council  EWHC 65 (QB), concerning the preliminary issue of limitation in Human Rights Act claims.
Sarah Salmon considers the Supreme Court judgment in N v A Clinical Commissioning Group and others  UKSC 22;  2 WLR 1011, a case described from the outset to be about the “jurisdiction” of the Court of Protection. It was, in fact, as Lady Hale noted, unfortunate that the case had been put this way: it was about the role of the Court of Protection and the approach that should be taken in light of its limited powers.
MR v SR (application for costs)  EWCOP 54: CCG suffers costs order in COP proceedings on grounds of unreasonable conduct M, the daughter of N, a 68-year-old female, brought proceedings under s15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for a declaration that it was not in N’s best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining […]
Jonathan Cowen summarises the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Secretary of State for Justice v Staffordshire County Council and others  EWCA Civ 1317
Eirwen Pierrot summarises today’s Court of Appeal decision in Steinfeld and Keiden v Secretary of State for Education  EWCA Civ 81
Christine Cooper and Eirwen Pierrot represented the Claimants in this important case.