R v Humberside County Council, ex parte Bogdal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1992 |
| Date | 12 May 1992 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Brooke
Registered homes - managing company's departure - judicial review - statutory appeals
Where a residential care home had been registered by the local authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984 because its running was entrusted to the management of a company regarded as a fit person for the purposes of the Act, the departure of the managing company from the home could justify the authority in cancelling the registration.
Where applications were made for judicial review of decisions for which statutory avenues of appeal existed, it would greatly assist judges to avoid granting leave in inappropriate cases if the applications gave notice of the existence of and progress in that appeal procedure.
Mr Justice Brooke so held in the Queen's Bench Division when refusing the application of Mrs Bogdal for judicial review of the decision of Humberside County Council to cancel the registration of her care home.
Mr Martin Jones for the applicant; Mr Roger McCarthy for the local authority.
MR JUSTICE BROOKE said that the applicant had been refused registration of her care home, run and managed by herself with help from her son, on the ground that she was not a fit person.
When an application was made in conjunction with a company, Care by Design, which specialised in running care homes, registration was agreed for the home on the understanding that the applicant would play only a subsidiary and background role and her son would not be involved in the running of the home which was to be the responsibility of the company acting through a manager and an assistant.
Following a disagreement, the company ceased to act as managers and the applicant was informed by notice under section 12(4)(a) of the 1984 Act that registration was cancelled as she was no longer a fit person.
The notice set out her right to make written or oral representations.
That she did in September 1989 the issue being that nothing had occurred, since her acceptance on registration, to render her no longer fit.
Arrangements were made for her to appear before the subcommittee on January 4, 1990; rearranged on January 15, 1990, adjourned at her request and refixed for February 9, 1990.
In the meantime she had applied for judicial review. The affidavit supporting the application in no way gave full coverage of the nature of the issues between the applicant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JIPFA Investments Ltd Claimant v The Minister of Physical Planning Defendant v Alred Frett Natalie Brewley The Intervenors
...the dispute before the court. Paragraphs 7 and 9 contain pertinent background information relevant to the claimant's claim: R v Humberside CC ex p Bogdal (No. 1) [1991] COD 66, R v Humberside CC ex p Bogdal (No. 2) [1992] COD 467; R v Humberside CC ex p Bogdal (No. 1) Court of Appeal, 6 Dec......