Somewhat unusually, there was a dispute on the facts about the man’s discharge from hospital previously, with the hospital blaming social services for an error and vice versa. After hearing the evidence, the coroner took the view that the version of the local authority’s social worker was correct.
News
This case was the first to see the provisions of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 before the higher courts and will have substantial implications for both private landlords and tenants in Wales.
In a recent homelessness appeal, Tyreese Jones v LB Southwark, the County Court has held that children who are privately fostered after the age of 16 have priority need for homelessness assistance from local authorities. Alexander Campbell appeared for the successful appellant.
The claimant argued that the local authority had a freestanding power to provide healthcare under s. 1 of the Localism Act 2011. The local authority argued it was able to provide healthcare under s. 75 of the NHS Act 2006 in partnership with the NHS and could not exercise the general power in s. 1 of the 2011 Act to circumvent the existing statutory scheme.
Sarah Salmon and Christopher McCarthy represent the tenants in Jarvis v Evans. The case raises a narrow but important point about the provisions of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.
Genevieve Screeche-Powell acted for the successful local authority in the High Court, Media and Communication List, in a breach of confidentiality/misuse of private information claim.
The ban on hearings to determine evictions of social and privately rented residential accommodation is to last until the end of August.
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.
Francis Hoar is instructed in the legal challenge against the UK Government’s Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ regulations (the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (England) Regulations). Judicial review proceedings were issued today.
Ruth Cabeza acted in this surrogacy case which raised an important point of law as to the jurisdiction to make a parental order under section 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act where the application is made by a surviving intended parent on behalf of both intended parents. The issue had not been tested in any previous cases.