Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 162 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 852 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Foskett J

Representation James Maurici (instructed by Beachcroft LLP) for the claimant.
  Tim Ward and Ben Lask (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the first defendant.
  James Eadie QC and Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the second defendant.
  Ingrid Simler QC (instructed by Haringey Legal Services) for the third defendant.
Judgment Dates: 23 April 2010

Catchwords

Children and young persons - Protection - Death of child - Fair processes - Child subject to protection plan dying at hands of mother, her boyfriend and their lodger - Accusations also being made against claimant Director of Children and Young People's Services at third defendant Haringey London Borough Council - First defendant Ofsted conducting inspection and publishing report on child safeguarding arrangements within Haringey - Second defendant Secretary of State issuing directions affecting claimant's position and that of her deputy - Claimant being summarily dismissed without compensation - Whether processes engaged by various defendants fair - s 497A.

The Case

Children and young persons Protection. The Administrative Court held, in dismissing the instant judicial review, that neither Ofsted, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, nor the local authority (Haringey London Borough Council) had engaged in unfair processes, or otherwise breached principles of natural justice, as those parties' respective decisions-actions affected the claimant, then the Director of Children and Young People's Services within the Borough: those actions-decisions were certain directions made by the Secretary of State pursuant to s497A of the ; Ofsted's publication of a report into the working of Haringey's Children and Young People's Department and the other agencies with responsibility for child protection; and Haringey's decision to dismiss the claimant, and the later confirmation of that decision by its appeals panel. The Court also commented on the consequence of the present lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which the inter-relation between the Secretary of State's powers under s497A of the 1996 Act and the contractual obligations of an authority towards an employee who had to be removed from a position because of a direction under that section had been considered by Parliament and what should be done by the relevant parties so as to ensure the situation which arose in the instant case did not arise again.

Practice Areas

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