Julian Querino v Cambridge City Council

Julian Querino v Cambridge City Council

The Council was entitled to disregard the Cafcass report as its disclosure was not permitted; there was no deficiency in the original decision or requirement for a 'minded to' letter; section 193(7F) and (8) were satisfied as the Council controlled both properties and could ensure no overlapping obligations; the reviewer's decision that the Flat was suitable was lawful and consistent with legal principles requiring exceptional circumstances for additional bedrooms for children with a main home elsewhere.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Julian Querino; Defendant/appellant: Cambridge City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court decision overturned; review decision stands.
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Suitability of Accommodation, Children's Welfare, Judicial Review, Disclosure of Family Court Documents, Equality Act Compliance
Housing Law Administrative Law Family Law Homelessness Suitability of Accommodation Children's Welfare Judicial Review Disclosure of Family Court Documents +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Querino

Claimant/respondent

Cambridge City Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was justified in offering one-bedroom accommodation to Mr Querino despite his wish for his children to stay overnight
  2. 2 Whether the review decision confirming the suitability of the property should stand
  3. 3 Whether the reviewer erred in disregarding the Cafcass report

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was entitled to disregard the Cafcass report as its disclosure was not permitted; there was no deficiency in the original decision or requirement for a 'minded to' letter; section 193(7F) and (8) were satisfied as the Council controlled both properties and could ensure no overlapping obligations; the reviewer's decision that the Flat was suitable was lawful and consistent with legal principles requiring exceptional circumstances for additional bedrooms for children with a main home elsewhere.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court decision overturned; review decision stands.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The County Court's decision is set aside.