[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

In the appeals before us, it is not immediately clear when in the decision-making process the respondent took into account the best interests of the appellants’ children. The freestanding paragraph on section 55 comes after both the consideration of discretion and the article 8 assessment and section 55 is not referred to within either section. At the hearing before us, however, both parties agreed that the best interests of the children must be a relevant consideration in the exercise of discretion. This is consistent with the language of the refusal letters, which refer to the duty being taken into account “[i]n deciding whether deprivation action is appropriate” (rather than “proportionate”).

The appellants say that the respondent failed to comply with her section 55 duty in two ways. First, she failed to take into account a highly relevant factor which was known to her, namely that both parents were being considered for deprivation at the same time. Secondly, she had insufficient evidence before her about the children’s circumstances to make a rational decision about how their bests interests would be affected by either or both deprivation decisions. She therefore had a legal duty to make further enquiries before taking a decision.

The duty to make enquiries is known as the Tameside duty, after the speech of Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council[1977] AC 1014. A court considering whether a public authority has complied with that duty must consider two questions: