header-logo header-logo

Immigration

12 March 2010
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of O) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council [2010] All ER (D) 36 (Mar)

Section 23C(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989 was not concerned with the provision of accommodation. Even if that were wrong, an authority was entitled to base a decision whether to terminate its provision of accommodation on the likelihood of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) providing assistance, at least until the outcome of any application to NASS for support was known.

Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers were a different category of person to the ‘infirm destitute’ for the purposes of determining where the duty to accommodate fell. There was a clear practical purpose in differentiating between the two groups. Those who needed accommodation and had particular medical needs were better looked after by local authorities which had the facilities to do so, while the able-bodied were more suited to being looked after by a central governmental organisation.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll