C1 & C2, R (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hackney

C1 & C2, R (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hackney

Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 does not apply to requests for assistance between departments within the same unitary authority; the statutory language and precedent preclude such an interpretation.

Parties
Claimant: C1 and C2 (by their mother and litigation friend); Defendant: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Refusal of Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Children Act 1989 Section 27, Judicial Review, Local Authority Duties, Consent Orders, Convention on the Rights of the Child
Administrative Law Children Law Housing Law Statutory Interpretation Children Act 1989 Section 27 Judicial Review Local Authority Duties Consent Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C1 and C2 (by their mother and litigation friend)

Claimant

London Borough of Hackney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Refusal of Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 27 of the Children Act 1989 apply to requests between departments within the same unitary authority?
  2. 2 Is the defendant obliged to provide suitable accommodation under section 27?
  3. 3 Should section 27 be interpreted in light of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and section 11 of the Children Act 2004?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 does not apply to requests for assistance between departments within the same unitary authority; the statutory language and precedent preclude such an interpretation.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay two thirds of the defendant’s costs of the claim on the standard basis to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Ancillary terms as to costs ordered but not detailed in judgment.