Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another: Admn 4 Mar 2002

The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and his or her mother. Section 2 of the 2000 Act might be of assistance, being drafted in broad terms to provide new powers for local authorities, including the power to assist in these circumstances. A local authority had power under the 2000 Act to provide an immigrant from Ghana whose status had not yet been determined with financial assistance for acquiring accommodation if this was the only way to avoid a breach of the applicant’s Article 8 rights. The facts of that case were that, if the immigrant was not assisted to acquire accommodation, it would be necessary to take her child into care. It was common ground that this would violate her Article 8(1) rights. Where a Convention right would be infringed if a local authority concluded that it was not open to it to exercise a particular power which it had, but that the infringement could be avoided by exercising some other power which it had, the power to exercise that other power becomes a duty to exercise it.
Justice Elias
Times 18-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 432 (Admin), [2002] 5 CCLR 434, [2002] 2 FLR 1
Children Act 1989 17, Local Government Act 2000 2, European Convention on Human Rights A8
England and Wales
AppliedRegina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 5-Nov-2001
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an . .
CitedRegina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 25-May-2001
The duty imposed by section 17 of the Act on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children is a general duty only, and is not capable of being enforced for the benefit of a particular child by way of judicial review. As a so . .

Cited by:
CitedK v London Borough of Lambeth CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing . .
CitedAnufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
CitedMorris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.168730