The current pandemic poses particular problems to care home managers and local authorities who make such placements. It raises questions about their legal obligations and the rights of care home residents in the face of this health crisis.
Joshua Swirsky will speak about Covid-19’s impact on supported housing, care homes and sheltered housing at a free Social Housing Law Association webinar on Thursday 11 June.
Joshua Swirsky acted for the successful local authority in R(Idolo) v LB Bromley  EWHC 860 (Admin).
Joshua Swirsky acted for the successful local authority in R(Idolo) v LB Bromley  EWHC 860 (Admin). The case involved the Administrative Court considering the relationship between the Care Act 2014 and the Housing Act 1996 in the context of someone with serious health problems who had accommodation but it was no longer suitable because of his ongoing care needs. The Deputy Judge also considered a claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.
All lawyers using the Civil Courts in England & Wales ought to be aware of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules that take effect next week. In particular, amendments to CPR 22 revise the form of Statements of Truth.
Sarah McKeown defended the successful local authority in a claim for judicial review concerning planning permission. Permission to bring the claim had been refused on the papers and the claimant requested an oral hearing to renew his application for permission to bring a judicial review.
Joshua Swirsky assesses the case of Pease v Carter  EWCA Civ 175 in which the Court of Appeal further limited the scope for tenants running defences based on errors in notices.
Many boundary disputes depend on factual findings made regarding historical documents, which often came into existence for other purposes. Although appeals on questions of fact that have been determined by a trial judge are nowadays rare, and tend to be discouraged by the appellate courts, Boas v Aventure shows how the court is likely to approach such a boundary dispute appeal.
In R(AB) v LB Ealing  EWHC 3351 (Admin) Joshua Swirsky represented the London Borough of Ealing in a challenge to its decision not to treat a young person as a ‘former relevant child’.
Joshua Swirsky acted for the local authority in R(F) v Manchester City Council. The council had carried out an age assessment on a young man from Guinea and concluded he was 20 years old rather than his claimed age of 17.