The High Court today handed down judgment in R (KS & AM) v London Borough of Haringey. The claim was brought by a mother and her youngest child who is six years old, is severely disabled and has no sense of danger. Children’s services recognized the danger that the current accommodation presents, particularly the danger of the child falling from one of the two the balconies at the front and rear of the property. A fire risk assessment found that it was not appropriate to seal the balcony doors and so the risk of serious injury from a fall remained. Children’s services therefore requested that the authority’s housing department provided the family with suitable accommodation.

The judgment was concerned with the relationship between the obligations owed to the family by the local authority’s children’s services and its housing department. It was found by the court that the housing authority was not entitled to treat the request that it provides appropriate accommodation as a request for a review of its housing allocation decision and put the family on a waiting list with little or no prospect of securing suitable accommodation. The court also found that where the housing department did not act on children’s services request for appropriate accommodation for the family, the children’s services department was required to formulate a plan setting out how the unaddressed needs of the family were to be met.

This is an important judgment which clarifies the high degree of co-operation required by law between children services and housing departments where they are dealing with vulnerable children. It will hopefully help to avoid the longstanding problem of families with such vulnerable children being passed from one public body to another without either taking responsibility for their pressing needs.

A link to the judgment of the High Court is available here.

Monckton Chambers’ Ian Wise QC acted for the claimants, instructed by Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors.

The Court of Appeal today handed down its long-awaited judgment in R (DA & Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The claim relates to a challenge to the lawfulness of the “benefit cap” legislation on the grounds that it unlawfully discriminates against, and hence breaches the human rights of, lone parents of children under two years old, and such children in their own right. A challenge to an earlier version of the benefit cap went all the way to the Supreme Court  but a narrow majority of the Supreme Court judges held that it did not discriminate against lone parents (and hence women) even though the majority of the Supreme Court judges did find that the cap breached the United Kingdom’s international obligations in relation to the welfare of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Today’s judgment of the Court of Appeal concerns the judicial review challenge to the revised, and significantly harsher, benefit cap legislation. The High Court held that the new cap did indeed discriminate unlawfully against lone parents of children under two years old (and such children), concluding that the cap had caused “real misery to no good purpose” (see here).

The Court of Appeal, by a majority of two to one, has overturned the High Court judgment based in particular on a different interpretation of the judgment in SG. The Court of Appeal did however consider that the High Court was entitled to find that the revised cap was again in breach of the UK’s obligations to children under the UNCRC. In addition, recognising the real public importance of the issues raised, the Court of Appeal has taken the unusual step of granting permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against its own judgment. This means that the lawfulness of the benefit cap is going to be considered again at the very highest level of the judicial system.

A link to the judgment of the Court of Appeal is available here.

Monckton Chambers’ Ian Wise QC and Michael Armitage acted for the claimants/respondents, instructed by Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine LLP.

The General Court has annulled the Commission’s decision that it did not need to comply with a request for review made under the Aarhus Regulation insofar as the decision in question related to the safety risks, as opposed to ‘environmental risks’ posed by a genetically modified organisms (“GMO”).

Pursuant to the Aarhus Regulation, Testbiotech submitted a request for review to the Commission of the legality of a market authorisation for a genetically modified soybean. The Commission rejected the greater part of the review on the basis that it was out with the scope of the Aarhus Regulation because it examined the health threats posed by the GMO, and not the threat it posed to the environment. The General Court found that as GMOs are cultivated in the environment they are, therefore, part of the general environment (whether they are cultivated in the EU or not). The Court found, therefore, that the Aarhus Regulation applies to any provision of EU legislation concerning the regulation of GMOs that has the objective of dealing with a risk to human or animal health, that originates in those GMOs or in environmental factors that may have effects on GMOs when they are cultivated or bred in the natural environment.

This judgment has broader significance for the exercise of environmental law rights by NGOs. It demonstrates that the General Court will adopt a broad and purposive approach to the scope of the Aarhus Regulation, enabling NGOs to challenge inappropriate market authorisations or other environmental decisions.

Kassie Smith QC and Julianne Kerr Morrison, instructed by Leigh Day, acted for Testbiotech.

For further detail see the General Court’s Press Release.

The judgement may be found here.

The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review of Walsall Council’s cemeteries policy, deeming it a matter of public interest.

The Claimant’s late father is buried in the lawn area of Streetly Cemetery, which is reserved for Muslim burials. The Council’s policy prohibits edging around graves in that area. The Claimant argues that appropriate edging is a religious requirement (to prevent people from stepping on graves) and that the ban is in breach of the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR and contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

Nikolaus Grubeck is acting for the Claimant.

For the media coverage see BBC and the Guardian.

The TCC has refused an application by Lancashire County Council to lift the suspension of a procurement relating to Children’s Services in Lancashire. The procurement is challenged by two local NHS Trusts – Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – who are the incumbent providers of the services. The contract has been awarded to Virgin Care Services Limited.

The judgment is notable in a number of respects:

• The Court held that the constraint on the availability of damages to a “sufficiently serious breach” was a factor which could be taken into account in deciding whether to lift the suspension.
• The Court held that damages were not an adequate remedy for the claimants given that the loss of the contract would require them to restructure their operations and would affect the way in which they provided other public services
• The Court rejected an argument that the Court should lift the suspension because a contract extension would be illegal
• The Court made observations confirming that contracting authorities should not unreasonably resist applications for specific disclosure of core evaluation and bid material

The Court ordered an expedited trial of the claim in April 2018.

Rob Williams acted for the successful Claimants instructed by Hempsons. The judgment can be found here.

The Lawyer has published the Top 20 Cases due to be heard in 2018, which this year has “public interest cases take centre stage” and is described as “a plethora of headline-grabbers.” Four members of Monckton Chambers are highlighted in this year’s list relating to two cases:

Peugeot SA & Ors v NSK Ltd & Ors

Competition Appeal Tribunal,

16 April, six weeks

Peugeot has launched a claim for damages against automotive parts supplier NSK Ltd and others that will reach court in April, following a March 2014 European Commission decision that identified cartel behaviour. The commission found the defendants guilty of collusive behaviour relating to their supply of automotive bearings to claimant the Peugeot group between 2004 and 2011. The upcoming hearing will examine the remaining technical issue surrounding the ‘overcharge’ resulting from anti-competitive behaviour.

The defendants claim this overcharge was passed onto Peugeot’s customers and, as such, it is not their responsibility to pay further damages. There is also confusion as to the extent of Peugeot’s loss resulting from the defendants’ cartel behaviour, and whether it is possible to monetise that loss.

Monckton Chambers’ Josh Holmes QC and James Bourke, instructed by Macfarlanes partner Geoff Steward is acting for the fifth defendant, AB SKF

 

Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

High Court,

27 February, two days

Liberty is seeking a judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, otherwise known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’, which was brought into law while Theresa May was home secretary in 2015.The bill granted the security services and the police powers to hack devices such as mobile phones and computers, and to retain data that might help them combat an increased terror threat. The legislation provoked an immediate backlash from civil rights campaigners who said it compromised citizens’ right to privacy and journalists’ ability to do their job.

The powers granted by the bill, including a requirement for telecoms operators to retain data, thematic hacking, the bulk interception of communications and the bulk acquisition of data, are (according to Liberty) incompatible with EU law and in contravention of the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Monckton Chambers’ Gerry Facenna QC and Michael Armitage, alongside Blackstone Chambers’ James Eadie QC and 11 KBW’s Julian Milford, are instructed by the Government Legal Department for the defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors.

Please click here to view the full article, if a subscriber of premium content.