Manchester City Council v Muir and Another: CA 20 Mar 2006

An interim anti-social behaviour order had been obtained against an 11 and a half year old boy in the county court, and an injunction sought against his mother under the 1996 Act. The defence had questioned whether there had been the required consultation with the police. It was then disputed whether that issue had been dealt with before the judge. The judge had clearly decided the consultation issue. The judge on appeal, not knowing of this decided against the council.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Since the requirements as to jurisdiction were the same for interim as final orders the decision of the first judge was binding on the second, and his decision as to the sufficiency of consultation stood. The events at the second hearing were a serious procedural irregularity.

Judges:

May LJ, Keene LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 423

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Housing Act 1996 156D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedB v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor CA 2003
On an application for an interim anti-social behaviour order, the court must consider whether the application for a final order has been properly made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241392