R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte D
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 18 November 1998 |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Kay
Children - assessed to be in need - council must look to long-term welfare of child
Where under Part III of the Children Act 1989 a local authority assessed a child to be in need and thereby had a duty to provide welfare assistance, in considering what was in the best interests of the child under that Act it had to consider both the short and long term welfare of the child.
It could offer the parent financial assistance for the family to return to the country from which they had come if it considered that to be in the best interests of the child, but it could not withdraw or threaten to withdraw assistance due under the duty if the parent refused such offer.
Mr Justice Kay so held in the Queen's Bench Division when granting an application by a mother for certiorari to quash the decision of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham made on October 27, 1998 to cease to provide accommodation and a subsistence allowance for her children under Part III of the 1989 Act.
Mr John Howell, QC and Mr Stephen Knafler for the mother; Mr Patrick Elias, QC and Ms Clare Roberts for the council.
MR JUSTICE KAY said that the applicant, a Swedish national, entered the UK with her children after fleeing from domestic violence in Sweden, and was given a subsistence allowance by the respondent authority. She was living with relatives in overcrowded accommodation and her children had started to attend school.
She applied to the council for assistance under the 1989 Act, who accepted that as the children were in need by reason of their homelessness it owed them a duty to provide assistance under that Act. In discharge of that duty, it provided the applicant with accommodation and a subsistence allowance.
On further assessment the council offered her financial assistance to return to Sweden, stating that that was in the best interests of the children because she would be entitled to income support and housing assistance there.
The council...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re R (A Child) (IVF: Paternity of Child)
...CA Transcript 1. R v Central Birmingham Health Authority, ex p Walker (1987) 3 BMLR 32, CA. R v Hammersmith and Fulham London BC, ex p D[1999] 2 FCR 401, [1999] 1 FLR R v Kingston upon Thames Royal Borough, ex p T[1994] 1 FCR 232, [1994] 1 FLR 798. R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996]......
-
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd
... ... Lord Hutton ... Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough ... HOUSE OF LORDS Session ... " of a flat known as 75A Ravenscourt Road, London, W6 from 1972 until his death in his 60s on 9 ... with the decision in Harrogate Borough Council v. Simpson (1984) 17 H.L.R. 205 ... The ... in Reg. v. Ministry of Defence, Ex parte Smith [1996] Q.B. 517 at pp. 552-554 when, ... ...
-
R (M) v Islington London Borough Council
...Guyana. That step was not, in itself, outside Islington's proper powers under the Children Act: see R v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC ex p D [1999] 1 FLR 642, per Kay J. However, it then came to be accepted that, as set out above, Mrs M was unlawfully in the United Kingdom. That was thought by I......
-
R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
... ... Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed ... In New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General of New Zealand [1994] 1 AC ... In R v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex p CPRE (CAT 26 th October ... ...