Attorney General Ex Rel Tilley v London Borough of Wandsworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE TEMPLEMAN,LORD JUSTICE BRANDON |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Civ J0204-3 |
| Docket Number | 81/0061 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 February 1981 |
[1981] EWCA Civ J0204-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF
JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MERVYN DAVIES, Q.C.
Royal Courts of Justice,
Lord Justice Lawton,
Lord Justice Brandon
and
Lord Justice Templeman
81/0061
1979 T. No. 1504
MR M. BELOFF (instructed by The London Borough of Wandsworth) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR J.R MACDONALD, Q.C. and MR A. BANO (instructed by Messrs Wilford McBain) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
Lord Justice Templeman will deliver the first judgment.
This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Mervyn Davies sitting as an additional judge of the Chancery Division and delivered on the 17th March 1980. The learned judge declared ultra vires a resolution which was passed by the Social Services Sub-Committee of the council of the London Borough of Wandsworth on the 4th July 1979 and confirmed by the full council on the 24th July 1979.
The resolution was: "That in those cases where intention' al homelessness had been determined by the Council in respect of a family with young children and, subsequently, an approach is made to the Social Services Department, it be decided that assistance with alternative housing be not provided under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 although consideration be given to the reception into care of the children should their circumstances so warrant it and that the whole matter be reviewed by Committee in three months time".
The learned judge decided that it is not open to the council to lay down that certain discretions and duties which are available and are imposed upon the council by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 shall not be carried out.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 introduces the notion of intentional homelessness. Under that Act localauthorities are under a duty to provide accommodation for families with children and their duties vary when the homelessness of the parents is intentional or unintentional. In the case of unintentional homelessness, a local authority is under a duty to provide permanent accommodation. In the case of intentional homelessness—and that could occur, for example, if a parent rashly gave up property which he owned or of which he had a lease, or behaved so badly that he was evicted as being a nuisance or in breach of covenant—then the duty of the council is much more limited. The council need not provide permanent accommodation. It must give the parent advice and assistance to find somewhere else for himself, and it has to give him temporary accommodation while he can look round and find some place for himself and his family.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 deals with individual children. Section 1 (1) of the Act says: "It shall be the duty of every local authority to make available such advice guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act 1948…and any provisions made by a local authority under this sub-section may, if the local authority think fit, include provision for giving assistance in kind, or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash".
Under the Children Act 1948 a child may be taken into care where it appears to a local authority, inter alia, that his parents, through incapacity or any other circumstances, are prevented from providing for his proper accommodation, maintenance and upbringing. So in the case of a child, if his parents cannot provide him with proper accommodation, maintenance and upbringing the local authority can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Sandip Narpatsinh Sayaniya v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)
...is that the decisions on the "non-fettering" principle relied on by Mr Malik such as Attorney General ex rel Tilly v Wandsworth LBC [1981] 1 WLR 854 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables [1998] AC 407 at 469 did not concern a statute which expressly permits rules......
-
Re Findlay
...as inappropriate the guidance which Mr. Sedley submitted was to be found in the judgment of Templeman L.J. in Attorney-General ex rel. Tilley v. Wandsworth London Borough Council [1981] 1 W.L.R. 854. That case was concerned with the duty imposed by section 1(1) of the Children and Young Pe......
-
Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd v Meadows and Others
...other members concurred in Viscount Dilhorne's speech. What Viscount Dilhorne said is not in harmony with [ Attorney-General, ex rel Tilley v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1981] 1 All ER 1162 ], or with the later decision of the House of Lords in Findlay v Secretary of State for the Ho......
-
R (J) v Enfield London Borough Council
...or old age: see R v London Borough of Wandsworth ex p.O [2000]1 WLR 2539. (5). Section 21 is very much a longstop provision, as the Wandsworth case makes plain. It only applies where care and attention is not otherwise available. However, the Court of Appeal has held that where the requisi......
-
The Children Act 1989 in the highest courts
...Act 1969 (re-enacted in section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980): Attorney-General, ex rel Tilley v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1981] 1 WLR 854 (see Review of Child Care Law, 1985, para 5.8). In R (G) v Barnet London Borough Council [2003] UKHL 57, [2004] 2 AC 208, the Law Lords took th......