EAT, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

EAT, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

Ms. N's application for indefinite leave to remain did not constitute a claim for asylum under Article 3 ECHR, either expressly or impliedly; Newham did not have reasonable grounds to believe such a claim had been made; therefore, the prohibition in section 122(5) IAA 1999 was not engaged and Newham was not prohibited from providing support under section 17 Children Act 1989.

Parties
Claimant: EAT (Acting by her mother and litigation friend Ms. N); Defendant: London Borough of Newham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's challenge succeeds; Newham not prohibited from providing support.
Legal Topics
Local Authority Support, Section 17 Children Act 1989, Section 122 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Asylum Support, Judicial Review, Best Interests of the Child
Administrative Law Child Welfare Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Local Authority Support Section 17 Children Act 1989 Section 122 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Article 3 ECHR +4 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EAT (Acting by her mother and litigation friend Ms. N)

Claimant

London Borough of Newham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority is prohibited from providing support under section 17 Children Act 1989 due to section 122(5) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether Ms. N's application for indefinite leave to remain constituted a claim for asylum under Article 3 ECHR
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'claim for asylum' and 'reasonable grounds' under section 122(5) IAA 1999

Ratio Decidendi

Ms. N's application for indefinite leave to remain did not constitute a claim for asylum under Article 3 ECHR, either expressly or impliedly; Newham did not have reasonable grounds to believe such a claim had been made; therefore, the prohibition in section 122(5) IAA 1999 was not engaged and Newham was not prohibited from providing support under section 17 Children Act 1989.

Court Disposition

Claimant's challenge succeeds; Newham not prohibited from providing support.

Orders

  • Newham to provide support and accommodation to the Claimant and her mother under section 17 Children Act 1989.