MM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2025] EWHC 143 (Admin) (28 January 2025)

MM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2025] EWHC 143 (Admin) (28 January 2025)

The events since the interim relief order, including the claimant's remand in custody and further offences, have not significantly shifted the balance of convenience to justify discharging the order. The council remains bound to comply with the interim relief order and must identify accommodation to enable a bail application. The issue of assessment of the claimant's care needs is for the substantive judicial review.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 143 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: MM, by his litigation friend Cathrin Istifanous; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Home Department; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hillingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Relief Enforcement and Discharge Applications
Outcome
Claimant's application to enforce interim relief granted; council's application to discharge interim relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Care Act 2014, Mandatory Injunction, Judicial Review Procedure, Local Authority Duties, Capacity and Disability, Immigration Detention, Bail Accommodation
Administrative Law Public Law Social Care Law Interim Relief Care Act 2014 Mandatory Injunction Judicial Review Procedure Local Authority Duties +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM, by his litigation friend Cathrin Istifanous

Claimant

Secretary of State for Home Department

First Defendant

London Borough of Hillingdon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Relief Enforcement and Discharge Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim relief order requiring the council to provide accommodation with care and support should be enforced or discharged
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances justifying discharge of the interim relief order
  3. 3 Whether the council failed to carry out a lawful assessment of the claimant's needs under the Care Act 2014

Ratio Decidendi

The events since the interim relief order, including the claimant's remand in custody and further offences, have not significantly shifted the balance of convenience to justify discharging the order. The council remains bound to comply with the interim relief order and must identify accommodation to enable a bail application. The issue of assessment of the claimant's care needs is for the substantive judicial review.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to enforce interim relief granted; council's application to discharge interim relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to identify and secure suitable accommodation with care and support for the Claimant within 21 days to enable a bail application.
  • Costs of both applications to be paid by the Second Defendant to the Claimant and First Defendant.