MC, Re Application for Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 22 (30 January 2004)

MC, Re Application for Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 22 (30 January 2004)

The petitioner's claim fails because foster carers and kinship carers under the Link Carer's scheme are not in an analogous situation; the statutory and practical differences are significant. The local authority's discretion is wide and not shown to be exercised unreasonably or unlawfully. Article 8 does not confer a right to financial assistance, and Article 14 is not engaged as the comparators are not analogous.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 22
Parties
Petitioner: M C or V (AP); Respondent: South Lanarkshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing (debate on Pleadings)
Outcome
Petitioner's first four pleas-in-law repelled as unsupported by relevant averments; case to be put out By Order for further procedure.
Legal Topics
Local Authority Duties, Child Welfare Payments, Discrimination, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Foster Care Vs. Kinship Care, Social Security Benefits
Administrative Law Family Law Human Rights Local Authority Duties Child Welfare Payments Discrimination Article 8 ECHR Article 14 ECHR +2 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M C or V (AP)

Petitioner

South Lanarkshire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing (debate on Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority's refusal to pay the petitioner the same financial assistance as foster carers was unreasonable or unlawful under domestic law and/or the ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 and Article 14 of the ECHR confer a right to equal financial support for kinship carers as for foster carers.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of family status.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner's claim fails because foster carers and kinship carers under the Link Carer's scheme are not in an analogous situation; the statutory and practical differences are significant. The local authority's discretion is wide and not shown to be exercised unreasonably or unlawfully. Article 8 does not confer a right to financial assistance, and Article 14 is not engaged as the comparators are not analogous.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's first four pleas-in-law repelled as unsupported by relevant averments; case to be put out By Order for further procedure.

Orders

  • Petitioner's first four pleas-in-law repelled.
  • Case to be put out By Order to consider further orders.