‘Two children who say they suffered “harassment and worse” whilst being brought up on a tough council estate have won the right to sue for massive compensation.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding “insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed”. Detectives launched the probe after Lutfur Rahman, the borough’s former mayor, was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices by a judge following a High Court hearing.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A teenager who did not want to live with her family because “they were not strict enough Muslims” after being returned from the Syrian border, should have been provided with accommodation and support by the local authority, the High Court has said.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Redbridge is to share information and intelligence with other councils and HM Revenue and Customs, after three people were found guilty of a £1.4m housing benefit fraud.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Jones v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch). Quite a lot of councils have agreements with water suppliers under which the council will collect water charges from their tenants, effectively as an addition to the rent. This case concerned a challenge to the nature and validity of Southwark’s agreement, at least before 2013.’
Nearly Legal, 5th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A London borough has overcharged approximately 37,000 tenants for water and sewerage services, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
In re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption): [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam)
‘In two cases babies, JL and AO, were born in England to mothers from Eastern Europe but relinquished at birth for adoption. In the case of JL the child, whose Estonian mother worked in England and whose putative father lived in Estonia, was accommodated by the local authority with the mother’s consent pursuant to an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and was placed with foster carers. The mother gave her written consent to his adoption and the putative father, maternal family and the Estonian authorities all supported his adoption in this country. The local authority sought a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the case of AO, the Hungarian parents working in England wished the child to be adopted in this country. AO had been removed at birth and placed with foster carers and had been made a ward of court. The local authority, children’s guardian and Hungarian authorities sought the child’s return to Hungary so that she could be placed for adoption there. Common issues arose as to what jurisdiction the court had to make orders facilitating such placements, (ii) the factors which had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures to be followed and (iii) where a child born to nationals of a foreign country had been placed voluntarily in the care of a local authority, with a view to adoption or otherwise, whether the authority was under an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 to inform the consular officials of that country about the placement. In the case of JL, the further issues arose whether the court had jurisdiction to make a placement order and what order, if any, should be made. In the case of AO, the further issues arose whether it was open to the court either to transfer jurisdiction to Hungary under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels IIA”) or to make an order permitting the local authority to send AO to Hungary; and what order, if any, the court should make.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon Ltd) v Swindon Borough Council: [2016] EWHC 448 (Admin)
‘The claimant submitted two separate planning applications to the defendant: one for the installation of a mezzanine floor at its property; and the other for external works to the property, which created no additional floor space. The defendant granted planning permission for both applications, informing the claimant that the mezzanine installation was development liable to a community infrastructure levy (“CIL”). The defendant’s view was that the development proposals fell within the scope of the meaning of development for CIL purposes due to the direct link between the two applications for the mezzanine and external alterations. The defendant, as the relevant CIL collecting authority, subsequently issued a CIL liability notice under regulation 65 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in relation to the installation of a mezzanine floor and external alterations at the claimant’s property, and a demand notice under regulation 69 of the 2010 Regulations in respect of the same development. By a judicial review claim the claimant challenged the lawfulness of the defendant’s act in issuing the two notices on the grounds that the mezzanine planning permission fell within the exemption created by regulation 6(1)(c) and that the external planning permission created no floor space and so was not liable to a CIL.’
WLR daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A local authority criticised for failing to protect Poppi Worthington’s siblings for almost a year after her death did not discipline social workers and instead applied for a draconian order in an attempt to cover-up the failings, documents show.’
The Guardian, 2nd March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘At last, devolution is happening in England, but there are some areas of concern especially as regards the lack of public engagement and the legal framework.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd March 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A High Court judge should not have overturned planning permission granted to a solar farm in Wiltshire in response to a legal challenge brought 11 months after the three-month limitation period then in force had expired, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee has begun an enquiry into homelessness. The written submissions from Councils, charities, campaigners, professional organisations and others are a stark illustration of a homeless system that is, at least in some areas, in complete crisis – overwhelmed, unable to cope with rapidly rising demand, let alone provide suitable accommodation.’
Nearly Legal, 29th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Paul Worthington awarded £87,318 for counsel payments and £29,450 for solicitors’ fees to fight against the proceedings.’
Daily Telegraph, 28th February 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A victim in the Rotherham grooming trial has claimed she was raped by a town councillor.’
The Guardian, 26th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The supreme court is to hear a legal challenge against the government’s bedroom tax from five people who argue it discriminates against the weak and vulnerable.’
The Guardian, 29th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Six men and women were found guilty of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of teenage girls in Rotherham, as it emerged that the conduct of more than 50 officers from South Yorkshire who had dealt with the victims is now under investigation.’
The Guardian, 24th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court has ruled that a planning inspector was not wrong to find that the housing supply figures in a council’s local plan were out of date and to accept alternative figures put forward by a developer as the basis for calculating the housing supply position for the purposes of a planning appeal.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim payment application made 6 days before the specified contractual date was rendered invalid for being too early. The key issue was whether it was possible that consistent failures to adhere to the contractual payment provisions would create an estoppel which would prevent an out of time payment application from being found invalid. Although Edwards-Stuart J found that it was arguable there was an estoppel for applications made a few days after the contractual date, there was no such estoppel for applications made early and so the application was found to be invalid.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024