Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and another

Public procurement Public contracts. The defendant county council (LCC) applied unsuccessfully to have an automatic suspension lifted, which had prevented it from entering into a contract with the winner of a tendering process for services when the outcome of the process had been challenged by the claimant NHS trusts (the trusts). The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although damages would be an adequate remedy for LCC, the impact on the trusts would go far wider than simply those aspects to which a money value could be attributed. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the trusts.

T (a child) v A Local Authority

Adoption Order. The child and the prospective adopters need for the security of adoption and his differing needs to those of his half siblings were factors the recorder was entitled to have regard to under the welfare test set by welfare checklist the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that faced with a choice between two options each having advantages and disadvantages, the recorder had reached a clear and fully-reasoned decision in granting a care and placement order.

*Re S (a child) (adoption: consent of child parent)

Adoption Consent. The Family Division gave guidance on a child parent's competence to consent to the placement of their baby for adoption and the baby's adoption. In the circumstances, it held that a specific assessment was required reasonably urgently on the mother's capacity to consent to adoption, before which she should receive some age-appropriate information about adoption in an age-appropriate way in order to enhance her decision-making potential.

*R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life. The defendant Secretary of State for Work and Pensions' policies were not unlawful under the the or the in so far as they concerned the treatment of people with a reassigned gender. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, rejecting her claims alleging that the policies breached arts 8 and-or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and were directly and indirectly discriminatory.

*Michalak v General Medical Council and others

Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction. The availability of judicial review proceedings in respect of decisions or actions of the General Medical Council did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal (the tribunal) by virtue of of the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court so held in upholding a decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division and remitting the respondent doctor's case.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and another v Makin and others

Dead body Disposal. The responsibility for disposing of the body of a notorious murderer would fall upon the third defendant local authority (Sefton). Although the duty of Sefton to bury or cremate the body under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984, s 46(1) (PH(CD)A) had not arisen, the Chancery Division had jurisdiction to make a partial administration under the . The court made directions as to the disposal of the body.

R (on the application of Davey) v Oxfordshire County Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission and another intervening)

Local authority Statutory duty. In the first case before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considering the the defendant local authority had not acted unlawfully in having reduced the claimant's personal care budget from 1,651 to 950 per week. Accordingly, the claimant was unsuccessful in his appeal against the judge's decision dismissing his application for judicial review, as the judge had been entitled to make the findings he had on the risk that the claimant's existing team of personal assistants would no longer work for him, their rates and the claimant's social activities.

R (on the application of LB, a minor, by her litigation friend SB) v Independent Appeal Panel of Newport City Council

Education Pupil. The defendant Independent Appeal Panel had not clearly made a finding that the claimant had used or threatened serious violence when it had upheld her permanent exclusion from a school and it was required to reconsider the case. The Administrative Court further held that the defendant had relied, wrongly, on its view that the school had fulfilled its duty to consider alternative solutions.

Francois v Waltham Forest London Borough Council

Local government Council tax. There had been no error of law in the Valuation Tribunal for England's decision, upholding the respondent local authority's refusal to allow a reduction in the appellant's council tax, as she had not provided the necessary information about her personal injury trust. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.

Chavez-Vilchez and others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and others

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in which it decided, among other things, that art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of assessing whether a child who was a Union citizen would be compelled to leave the territory of the EU as a whole and thereby deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by that article if the child's third-country national parent was refused a right of residence in the member state concerned, the fact that the other parent, who was a Union citizen, was actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child was a relevant factor, but it was not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there was not, between the third-country national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would indeed be so compelled were there to be such a refusal of a right of residence.