M (Children), Re [2016] EWCA Civ 937 (09 September 2016)

M (Children), Re [2016] EWCA Civ 937 (09 September 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's sealed order, which provided only that T should remain a ward of court during her minority and did not require the local authority to provide care or accommodation, was not ultra vires or contrary to statutory restrictions. The inherent jurisdiction and wardship cannot be used to require a local authority to accommodate a child where the statutory scheme does not permit it. The order merely supported the existing voluntary arrangements under s 20 and did not compel the local authority to act. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 937
Parties
Subject Child: T (a child, referred to as 'T'); Appellant's Counsel: Ms Tina Cook QC and Mr Chris Barnes; First Respondent's Counsel (local Authority): Mr Roger McCarthy QC; Second Respondent's Counsel (children's Guardian): Miss Jane Rayson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wardship, Inherent Jurisdiction, Care Orders, Children Act 1989, Jurisdictional Limits, Vulnerable Children, Accommodation of Children, Mental Capacity
Family Law Child Law Public Law Wardship Inherent Jurisdiction Care Orders Children Act 1989 Jurisdictional Limits +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T (a child, referred to as 'T')

Subject Child

Ms Tina Cook QC and Mr Chris Barnes

Appellant's Counsel

Mr Roger McCarthy QC

First Respondent's Counsel (local Authority)

Miss Jane Rayson

Second Respondent's Counsel (children's Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to make orders in wardship and/or under the inherent jurisdiction for the accommodation of a 17-year-old child where a care order cannot be made under the Children Act 1989, s 31(3)
  2. 2 Whether the High Court can require a local authority to provide care and accommodation for a 17-year-old under its inherent jurisdiction or wardship
  3. 3 Whether the sealed order made by the High Court was ultra vires or contrary to statutory restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's sealed order, which provided only that T should remain a ward of court during her minority and did not require the local authority to provide care or accommodation, was not ultra vires or contrary to statutory restrictions. The inherent jurisdiction and wardship cannot be used to require a local authority to accommodate a child where the statutory scheme does not permit it. The order merely supported the existing voluntary arrangements under s 20 and did not compel the local authority to act. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The sealed order of the High Court stands: T shall remain a ward of court during her minority.
  • No order requiring the local authority to provide care or accommodation was made.