Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 273 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 1364 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Bennett J
Representation Timothy Straker QC and Christopher Buttler (instructed by Bennett Wilkins) for M.
  Ian Wise (instructed by Harter & Loveless) for A.
  Charles Bear QC and Jon Holbrook (instructed by Sternberg Reed) for Lambeth London Borough Council.
  Bryan McGuire and Peggy Etiebet (instructed by Croydon Legal) for Croydon London Borough Council.
  Doek Joo Rhee (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State as interested party.
Judgment Dates: 20 June 2008

Catchwords

Local authority - Accommodation - Provision of accommodation for foreign national children - Claimants arriving in United Kingdom and applying for asylum - Claimants applying to local authorities for accommodation support whilst asylum applications pending - Authorities refusing to provide claimants with accommodation on basis they were over age of 18 - Claimants applying for judicial review - Hearing of preliminary issues ordered - Whether age determination of each claimant by respective authorities contrary to procedural protections guaranteed by art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Determination of character of right owed by authority - Whether right could be equated to civil right for purposes of engaging Convention -  1, Pt 1, art 6.

The Case

On its true construction, s20 of the provided an absolute duty upon a local authority to provide accommodation. The duty under s20(1) arose when, and only when, an authority arrived at a decision that the young person concerned was (i) a child in need, (ii) in the area, (iii) who required accommodation, (iv) as a result of one of the triggers in the sub-sub-sections (a) to (c), and (v) having considered the matters set out at sub-sections (6), (7), (8) and (9). Further, having regard to, inter alia, domestic law and Strasbourg jurisprudence, the right to be provided with accommodation under s20 of the 1989 Act did not equate to a civil right within art6(1) of the Convention. Even if it did, then there could be no determination of it for art6 to be engaged.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports