Case No. Case-No.-CO-5942-2017

[2004] 2 AC 208 and held: “24. On the other hand, the Act draws a distinction between the “general duty” in section 17(1) and the specific duties laid down elsewhere in Part III, including section 20. As Lord Hope made clear in para 81, these duties do leave important matters to the judgment of the authority. But once those matters have been decided in a particular way, it must follow that a duty is owed to the individual child. Thus Lord Hope was able to conclude, in para 100, that there was no doubt that the authorities were under a duty to provide accommodation under section 20(1) for the children of the two claimants who did not qualify for accommodation under the 1996 Act. The concern for children's welfare which ran throughout Part III meant that the children should not suffer because their mother had come to this country or had become homeless intentionally. Thus these mothers were “prevented” within the meaning of section 20(1)(c) even though it was their own choice….” 21. At [27] and [31] she added: “… Parliament has decided the circumstances in which the duty to accommodate arises and then decided what that duty involves. It is not for the local authority to decide that, because they do not like what the duty to accommodate involves or do not think it appropriate, they do not have to accommodate at all.”“Section 20 involves an evaluative judgment on some matters but not a discretion” 22. It is common ground that the accommodation to be provided must be suitable for the child’s needs but whether it is suitable is a matter for the Council’s expert judgment, subject to normal public law principles which set a high threshold for intervention by the Court. It is also right when considering the exercise of judgment to have regard to the current difficult and financially straitened circumstances in which local authorities have to operate: see Helen Mountfield QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in