T (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2026] EWCA Civ 307 (19 March 2026)

T (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2026] EWCA Civ 307 (19 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge below erred in law by refusing leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction on the basis that a secure accommodation order was available, when in fact no such placement existed. The court found reasonable cause to believe T was likely to suffer significant harm if the inherent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 307
Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; Third Respondent: T (child); First Respondent: T's mother; Second Respondent: T's father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (family Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Inherent Jurisdiction, Children Act 1989, Secure Accommodation, Best Interests, Article 5 ECHR
Family Law Human Rights Deprivation of Liberty Inherent Jurisdiction Children Act 1989 Secure Accommodation Best Interests Article 5 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

T (child)

Third Respondent

T's mother

First Respondent

T's father

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (family Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant leave to the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of liberty when no secure accommodation is available
  2. 2 Whether T is likely to suffer significant harm if the court's inherent jurisdiction is not exercised
  3. 3 Whether deprivation of liberty is in T's best interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge below erred in law by refusing leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction on the basis that a secure accommodation order was available, when in fact no such placement existed. The court found reasonable cause to believe T was likely to suffer significant harm if the inherent jurisdiction was not exercised, including emotional and psychological harm. The deprivation of liberty was necessary, proportionate, and in T's best interests, given the lack of alternative placements and T's wish to remain at L House.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Leave granted to local authority to invoke inherent jurisdiction under section 100 Children Act 1989
  • Declaration that deprivation of liberty at L House is lawful and in T's best interests until 4:00pm on 17 April 2026