The applicant asylum-seeker had arrived in Hillingdon and claimed that he required assistance, that he was a child, and that he wanted to go to Liverpool. Hillingdon had assisted him to do so. Liverpool now appealed against a finding that it was responsible to provide care for him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Hillingdon had a duty to investigate the circumstances before reaching its decision. That duty included giving proper consideration to the wishes of the child, and such wishes should be given more weight according to their cogency, and might be determinative. Even so the Authority had a duty to make a proper assessment, and had not done so. Hillingdon had not discharged its duty.
Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Wilson
[2009] EWCA Civ 43, [2009] Fam Law 394, [2009] 1 FLR 1536, [2009] PTSR 1067, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 286, [2009] BLGR 289
Bailii, Times
Children Act 1989 20
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Liverpool City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and AK Admn 18-Jul-2008
Two local authorities disputed who should take responsibility for the care of a vulnerable young person. He had first claimed asylum in Liverpool, then was detained in Oxfordshire and last in Hillingdon who returned him on his request to Liverpool, . .
Cited by:
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark HL 20-May-2009
The House was asked whether when a child of 16 or 17 who was ejected from home and presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, it is open to that authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Local Government
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.282604