header-logo header-logo

06 February 2026
Issue: 8148 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 6 February 2026

Child

R (on the application of CLT by his litigation friend CLA) v Hounslow London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 162 (Admin)

The Administrative Court allowed a judicial review claim brought by the claimant, CLT, a 16-year-old child, challenging the defendant London Borough of Hounslow’s failure to recognise him as ‘looked after’ and ‘eligible’ child status, engaging duties under ss 22 to 22G of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court found that following the death of the claimant’s father in November 2020, the local authority owed him duties under s 20(1), ChA 1989 to provide accommodation as there was no person with parental responsibility for him. The court rejected the local authority’s contention that a private fostering arrangement with a distant cousin obviated that duty, finding that the authority had played a ‘major role’ in arranging the claimant’s care and had effectively provided accommodation by allowing him to remain in council property despite having no legal right to it. The court held that where a local authority allowed a child

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll