GE (Eritrea)
at [35] to [44], Christopher Clarke LJ pointed out, disagreeing with the Court of Appeal in D on the deeming of a child to be looked after, when in fact the authority had not done so, pointed out that the reasoning was obiter and unnecessary since it had found that Southwark had, in any event, acted in a manner which demonstrated that they were assuming a s. 20 duty. 100.In my judgment, it is necessary to look at the facts and what the Council did as opposed to how it characterised what it was doing, bearing in mind Lady Hale’s statement in
- Hearing date: 1 May 2018
- Introduction
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Duty of candour
- R (Quark Fishing Limited) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
- R. (Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean DC
- Relevant law
- Provision of accommodation for children: general
- local authority in relation to children looked after by them.
- R. (G) v Southwark LBC
- R (A) v Croydon LBC
- R (G) v Barnet LBC
- R (O) v London Borough of Lambeth
- Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children
- R (D) v Southwark LBC
- GE (Eritrea
- R(Birara) v Hounslow LBC
- R (M) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC
- Facts
- ACCOMMODATION and HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE HOME
- McDonald v RBKC
- The grounds of challenge
- Ground 2
- G v Southwark
- R. (Collins) v Knowsley MBC
- D v. Southwark
- Southwark
- GE (Eritrea)
- Ground 3
- Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
- R (BC) v Birmingham CC