C, T, M & U, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Southwark
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- BOBBIE CHEEMA Q.C .
- Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimants, Nigerian nationals residing in the UK, challenged the local authority's support and accommodation as unlawful under the Children Act 1989 and Human Rights Act 1989. The court reviewed multiple assessments conducted by the Defendant from 2012 to 2014 and found that these assessments were thorough and lawful. It held that specific impact assessments for certain moves and decisions about temporary supports were within the Defendant's discretionary authority. Consequently, the court denied the Claimants' judicial review, affirming the lawfulness of the Defendant's actions and support provisions.
Judgment
Bobbie Cheema Q.C.:
Introduction
This claim for judicial review is brought with the permission of Robin Purchas Q.C. granted at a permission hearing on 14 th February 2014. The Claimants are Nigerian nationals. The first Claimant is an over-stayer. She is the mother of the second, third and fourth Claimants, all of whom (together with a baby, E born in October 2013) are dependent children born in the United Kingdom. At the time the claim was issued the Claimants were all awaiting the resolution of the first Claimant’s immigration application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds sent by letter on 26 th June 2012 and acknowledged by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 7 th December 2012. That application has since been refused by the Secretary of State and they now await the outcome of an appeal which The First Tier Tribunal is due to hear on 3 rd February 2015.
The court has ordered that the minor Claimants have the protection of s.39 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Claimants will be referred to as C, T, M and U to protect the children’s anonymity.
The claim challenges the lawfulness of the type of accommodation and level of support provided to the family by the Defendant, a local authority in London, pursuant to s.17 Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1989.
In their amended claim as set out in their Supplementary Grounds (further amended in light of subsequent developments) and argued at the hearing the Claimants seek the following relief:
An order quashing the Defendant’s assessments of the needs of the second, third and fourth Claimants as children in need carried out on 21 st May 2012, 4 th September 2012, 21 st January 2013 and 20 th February 2014 and a declaration that the financial support provided by the Defendant has at all material times been unlawful and has discriminated against them by reason of their mother’s (the first Claimant’s) immigration status.
A declaration that the Defendant’s proposal that the family should be accommodated outside the area where they had an established family and private life was unlawful in the absence of an assessment of its impact on the children.
An order quashing the Defendant’s decision not to continue to support the Claimants’ travel arrangements during the school holidays.
A declaration that the bed and breakfast accommodation provided to the family from June 2012 to January 2013 was unlawful for all or part of that period.
A mandatory order requiri