header-logo header-logo

13 October 2017
Issue: 7765 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Local authority

R (on the application of Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Health [2017] EWHC 2449 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 41 (Oct)

The defendant Secretary of State had made no error of law when having decided that the services the second interested party had required had not been intrinsically linked to his accommodation and had been of the nature of care provided in the home under the National Assistance Act 1948 s 29. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local authority’s application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision that he was ordinarily resident in the claimant’s area for the purposes of the provision of care services to him.

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll