The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They must show that their children are children in need within the meaning of section 17(10). The respondents must be under a duty to provide their children with accommodation. They must then show that section 23(6) applies to their case. Last, whether a local authority looking after a child is under a duty to provide accommodation to any of the persons mentioned in section 23(6)(a) and (b), who include the child’s parent, to enable the child to live with that person. Part III of the Children Act 1989 did not oblige a local authority to provide accommodation to enable a dependent child to live with its parents.
Lord Hope of Craighead, in relation to the target duty in section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989, said: ‘I think that the correct analysis of section 17(1) is that it sets out duties of a general character which are intended to be for the benefit of children in need in the local social services authority’s area in general. … [In] R v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex p B [1994] ELR 357 … Auld J . . observed . . that the duties under Part III of the [Children Act] 1989 . . fell into two groups, those which are general and those which are particular, and that the general duties are concerned with the provision of services overall and not to be governed by individual circumstances . . As Mr Goudie for the defendants accepted, members of that section of the public [affected by the local authority’s decision] have a sufficient interest to enforce those general duties by judicial review. But they are not particular duties owed to each member of that section of the public of the kind described by Lord Clyde in R v Gloucestershire County Council, Ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, 610a which give a correlative right to the individual which he can enforce in the event of a failure in its performance.’
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2003] 3 WLR 1194, Times 24-Oct-2003, [2003] UKHL 57, [2004] 2 AC 208, [2003] BLGR 569, [2003] NPC 123, [2004] HRLR 4, [2004] 1 FLR 454, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 500, [2004] HLR 10, [2003] 3 FCR 419, [2004] Fam Law 21, [2004] 1 All ER 97
Links:
Statutes:
Children Act 1989 17 23(6), European Convention on Human Rights 8.1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (G) v Barnet London Borough Council CA 11-Apr-2001
A mother and child from Holland were homeless in London. The mother was not entitled to be rehoused as a homeless person, nor to housing benefit, nor to income support, but sought the right to be housed with her child. The authority felt the best . .
Cited – Regina v Inner London Education Authority, Ex parte Ali 1990
The broad duty imposed on a local education authority by section 8 ‘to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools . . for providing primary education’ is a ‘target duty’. . .
Cited – Regina v Northavon District Council ex parte Smith HL 18-Jul-1994
Local Authority is under no obligation to provide permanent housing for a family with children save as provided under the Act. The Children Act not to be used as a way around homelessness decisions and rules. A Social Services request to house . .
Cited – Attorney General ex rel Tilley v Wandsworth London Borough Council 1981
The section was to be given a wide interpretation. . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of AB and SB) v Nottingham City Council Admn 30-Mar-2001
A local authoity’s failure to fulfil its obligations may be the subject of a mandatory order in approriate cases. The Court ordered a local authority to carry out a full assessment of a child’s needs in accordance with the guidance given by the . .
Cited – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Anita Bradford Raymond Bradford, Simon Bradford (a Minor By His Next Friend Raymond Bradford) Admn 13-Jan-1997
Section 17(1) imposes an obligation in respect of the needs of an individual child. . .
Cited – Regina v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex parte Tammadge 1998
. .
Cited – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Anita Bradford Raymond Bradford, Simon Bradford (a Minor By His Next Friend Raymond Bradford) Admn 13-Jan-1997
Section 17(1) imposes an obligation in respect of the needs of an individual child. . .
Cited – Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry HL 21-Mar-1997
The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain . .
Cited – Regina v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Help the Aged ex parte Blanchard CA 31-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – Regina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte Tandy HL 21-May-1998
A Local Authority may not take its own financial constraints into account when assessing what was an appropriate education for a child in special needs case. It was wrong to try to turn a statutory duty into a power or a discretion. Ordinarily cost, . .
Cited – Regina v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick and similar HL 19-Mar-1993
No homelessness priority could be established by means of having a child applying for housing, rather than his or her parent. An application by a person suffering mental disability who would also be dependent upon others was also rejected. In each . .
Cited – Z and E v Austria ECHR 1986
The state must act in a manner calculated to allow those concerned to lead a normal family life. . .
Cited – K And T v Finland ECHR 12-Jul-2001
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning J.; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning M.; No violation of Art. 8 . .
Cited – Kutzner v Germany ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The mutual enjoyment by parent . .
Cited – KA v Finland ECHR 14-Jan-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8 with regard to taking into care ; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to involvement in decision-making process ; Violation of Art. 8 with . .
Cited – Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (ex parte Kujtim) CA 31-Mar-1999
A person had been assessed by the local authority under section 47 as being a person in urgent need of care and attention which was not otherwise available to him, so that he satisfied the criteria laid down in section 21(1)(a). He claimed that, . .
Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council Ex Parte B and Others QBD 17-Nov-1993
A Local Authority has to balance its duties to provide nurseries against financial constraints. The section sets out duties of a general character which are intended to be for the benefit of children in need in the local social services authority’s . .
Cited – Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (G) v Barnet London Borough Council CA 11-Apr-2001
A mother and child from Holland were homeless in London. The mother was not entitled to be rehoused as a homeless person, nor to housing benefit, nor to income support, but sought the right to be housed with her child. The authority felt the best . .
Cited – Morris, 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 . .
Cited – Kent County Council v G and others HL 24-Nov-2005
A residential assessment order had been made under the 1989 Act in care proceedings. When the centre recommended a second extension of the assessment, the council refused, saying that the true purpose was not the assessment of the child but the . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Cited – Conville v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames CA 8-Jun-2006
The applicant applied for housing being a homeless single mother. The council found that she was intentionally homeless, and was required to leave the temporary accomodation provided. The judge considered that the phrase ‘reasonable opportunity of . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham HL 27-Feb-2008
M, a girl aged 16 had become estranged from her mother, and sought housing assistance. She was not referred to the authority’s children’s services, and was not housed. The House examined the duties of local authorities under the section towards . .
Cited – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
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 . .
Cited – A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 14-Jun-2017
The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled . .
Cited – Poole Borough Council v GN and Another SC 6-Jun-2019
This appeal is concerned with the liability of a local authority for what is alleged to have been a negligent failure to exercise its social services functions so as to protect children from harm caused by third parties. The principal question of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Local Government
Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.187098