R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council [2024] EWHC 701 (Admin) 26 March 2024 – Collins Rice J Summary – This case concerned Birmingham City Council’s charging policy which the claimant YVR contended discriminated “against people who, like him, are so disabled they cannot, and will never be able to, do any paid work.” Click on […]
R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council Read More »
Summary: The claimant, a 51-year-old man with severe physical and mental health conditions, sought judicial review of Kensington and Chelsea’s Housing Officers’ decision (“the Decision”), which had rejected his request for accommodation during the review of an earlier decision that deemed him not homeless under the Housing Act 1996. It was held that due to
This was a judicial review (JR) claim concerning the interaction between the obligations of the Defendant, Newham Council (LBN), under the Care Act (CA 2014) and those of the Home Secretary under s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”), in relation to the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers with eligible care
SB & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Newham [2023] EWHC 2701 Read More »
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1668.html Summary: This case regards a claim in the High Court for the misuse of private information and breach of rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), both of which succeeded and led to an award of £6000 in damages. Mr Yao Bekoe, the claimant, lived in the London Borough of Islington (“LBI”) and
Bekoe v Islington [2023] EWHC 1668 Read More »
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/810.html A previous ruling which found the Government’s National Disability Strategy survey was unlawful has been overturned by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The judgment was handed down on 11 July 2023, following a hearing on 28 June 2023 before Lady Justice Macur, Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing. Background Four disabled
Secretary of State for Work And Pensions v Eveleigh & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 810 Read More »
Summary: Wokingham Borough Council had not sufficiently engaged with Swalcliffe Park School, a residential school for children with autistic spectrum disorder before naming it as the appropriate placement for a 16-year-old boy in his education, health, and care plan, effectively forcing the school to take the boy. The High Court told Wokingham Borough Council to
Does she have a home to go to, still? I.e. accommodation where she has a right to occupy? It doesn’t have to be HERS – it could be the home of a relative, or the opportunity to have a tenancy in another building in which care could be provided, in theory. If so, ask for
Yes, as long as it follows due process and does not act unreasonably. The harsh and perhaps surprising answer is Yes, because in legal terms, after a period of a direct payment being in payment, the council is required to do a review and if it does a proper s27 revision exercise, it can reduce
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1344.html 15 May 2015 Facts This case concerned a claim for judicial review of a decision by the Ombudsman, the defendant, dated 22 January 2014, to uphold the conclusion of a report dated 23 August 2013 (“the Final Report”). The Claimant (“Mr Rapp”) began employment with an organisation known as Flexible Training (“Flexible”), which provided
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/702.html This case concerned an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings on behalf of W, the claimant, against the London Borough of Lambeth, the defendant. W became homeless around the time of her 17th birthday when her relationship with her mother, which had been fractious throughout her life, completely broke down. The crux