Results: 96

• Samuels v Birmingham City Council

  27 Oct 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1051; [2016] PTSR 558; [2016] 4 All ER 589; [2015] WLR (D) 435, CA

  19 Feb 2018 (appn all) [2018] PTSR 800, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  12 Jun 2019 [2019] UKSC 28; [2019] PTSR 1229; [2019] 4 All ER 773; [2019] WLR (D) 355; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 3.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally”
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally” — Landlord terminating tenancy after applicant defaulting on rent payments — Local housing authority refusing application for housing assistance on ground applicant intentionally homeless — Whether property “affordable” and therefore reasonable for applicant to continue to occupy — Whether social security benefits to be taken into account as applicant’s income when determining whether accommodation affordable — Housing Act 1996, s 191(1) — Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3204), art 2

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally” — Landlord terminating tenancy after applicant defaulting on rent payments — Local housing authority refusing application for housing assistance on ground applicant intentionally homeless — Whether property affordable and therefore reasonable for applicant to continue to occupy — Whether all social security benefits to be taken into account as applicant’s income when determining whether accommodation affordable — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), s 191(1) — Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3204), art 2

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

  23 Jan 2015 [2015] EWHC 73 (TCC); [2015] PTSR 1106; [2015] WLR (D) 41, QBD (Edwards-Stuart J)

  15 Dec 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1262; [2016] PTSR 689; [2015] WLR (D) 528, CA

  16 May 2016 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  11 Apr 2017 [2017] UKSC 34; [2017] 1 WLR 1373; [2017] PTSR 539; [2017] 4 All ER 1; [2017] WLR (D) 272; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 20.
  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract awards procedure — Breach

  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract award procedure — Breach

  DAMAGES — Mitigation — Claim for breach of procurement process
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract awards procedure — Breach — Damages — Unsuccessful tenderer claiming damages for alleged breaches in procurement process — Claim issued within 30-day time limit but after regulatory standstill period and after contract entered into — Scope of discretion to award damages — Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended by Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2009, reg 10 and Public Procurement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2011 , reg 12(2)(a))), regs 47D(2), 47J(2)(c) — Council Directive 89/665/EEC (as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 2007/66/EC)

  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract award procedure — Breach — Damages — Unsuccessful tenderer claiming damages for alleged breaches in procurement process — Claim issued within 30-day time limit but after regulatory standstill period and after contract entered into with successful bidder — Whether discretion to award damages — Whether obligation on claimant to invoke alternative procedure — Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/5) (as amended by Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2992), reg 10 and Public Procurement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2053), reg 12(2)(a)), regs 47D(2), 47J(2)(c) — Council Directive89/665/EEC (as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 2007/66/EC), art 2(1) — Parliament and Council Directive2004/18/EC

  DAMAGES — Mitigation — Claim for breach of procurement process — Standstill period after notification of result of tender process allowing unsuccessful bidder to trigger suspension of contract award by issuing proceedings — Unsuccessful bidder thereby able to prevent loss from failure to obtain contract if claim successful — Whether failing unreasonably to mitigate loss by pursuing damages only claim after end of standstill period

  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract award procedure — Breach — Damages — European Union law condition limiting liability for breach of EU law right to “sufficiently serious” breaches of duty — Whether applicable to domestic law implementing public procurement Directive — Whether domestic law providing for recovery of damages for less serious breaches of procurement process — Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/5) (as amended by Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2992), reg 10 and Public Procurement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2053), reg 12(2)(a)), regs 47D(2), 47J(2)(c) — Council Directive89/665/EEC (as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 2007/66/EC), art 2(1) — Parliament and Council Directive2004/18/EC

  10 Case(s) considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers) v Bristol City Council

  15 Dec 2015 [2015] EWHC 3615 (Admin); [2016] PTSR 932; [2015] WLR (D) 525, QBD (William Davis J)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  CHILDREN — Care and protection — Foster parent
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Care and protection — Foster parent — “Most appropriate placement” — Challenge to lawfulness of local authorities’ policies concerning placements of looked after children — Whether failing in duty to place child in “most appropriate placement” — Whether policies lawful — Children Act 1989 (c 41), s 22C (as inserted by Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (c 23), s 8(1))

  1 Statute considered
• Jones v Southwark London Borough Council

  04 Mar 2016 [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch); [2016] PTSR 1011; [2016] WLR (D) 124, Ch D (Newey J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 2.
  WATER — Water supply — Charges
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WATER — Water supply — Charges — Local authority letting flat to claimant under weekly tenancy — Claimant’s flat not fitted with water meter — Whether local authority charging claimant more than permissible — Water Resale Order 2006, paras 5, 6

  WATER — Water supply — Charges — Local authority letting property to claimant under weekly tenancy — Claimant’s property not fitted with water meter — Local authority collecting charges for water and sewerage services supplied to property by water company — Whether collecting charges as agent of water company — Whether charging claimant more than permissible — Water Industry Act 1991 (c 56), s 150 (as amended by Water Act 2003 (c 37), s 59(3)) — Water Resale Order 2006, paras 5, 6

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Forge Care Homes Ltd) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (Secretary of State for Health intervening)

  11 Mar 2015 [2015] EWHC 601 (Admin); [2015] PTSR 945; [2015] WLR (D) 134, QBD (Hickinbottom J)

  02 Feb 2016 (Secretary of State for Health intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 26; [2016] PTSR 908; [2016] WLR (D) 63, CA (Laws, Elias, Lloyd Jones LJJ)

  11 Jul 2016 (appn all) [2016] PTSR 1202, SC(E)

  02 Aug 2017 [2017] UKSC 56; [2017] PTSR 1140; [2018] 1 All ER 449; [2017] WLR (D) 559; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Health and social care — Nursing care

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT  — Health and social care — Nursing care
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Health and social care — Nursing care — Care homes — Statutory prohibition on local authorities paying for or providing “nursing care by a registered nurse” — Local health boards paying only for time spent by registered nurses in provision of healthcare to care home residents — Whether local authorities prohibited from paying for other tasks performed by registered nurse — Whether health boards’ approach to funding of nursing care in care homes erroneous — Health and Social Care Act 2001, s 49 — National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, s 3(1) — Care Homes (Wales) Regulations 2002, reg 18(3)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Health and social care — Nursing care — Care homes— Statutory prohibition on local authorities paying for or providing “nursing care by a registered nurse”— Local health boards paying only for time spent by registered nurses in provision of nursing care to care home residents— Whether local authorities prohibited from paying for other tasks performed by registered nurse— Whether health boards’ approach to funding of nursing care in care home erroneous— Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c 15), s 49 — National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c 42), s 3(1) — Care Homes (Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/324), reg 18(3)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT  — Health and social care — Nursing care — Care homes— Provision for means-tested residents requiring some nursing care but having primary need for social and personal care— Requirement for cost to be met by local authority save in respect of “nursing care” by registered nurse— Health boards in Wales responsible for meeting cost of “nursing care”— Boards restricting funding to actual time spent by nurse in provision of nursing procedures and excluding ancillary care provided by nurse— Whether correct— Whether boards also to fund personal care provided to resident by nurse ancillary to nursing care— Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c 15), s 49 — National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c 42), s 3(1) — Care Homes (Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/324), reg 18(3)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Taylor) v Secretary of State for Justice

  16 Nov 2015 [2015] EWHC 3245 (Admin); [2016] PTSR 446; [2015] WLR (D) 470, QBD (Leggatt J)

  Subsequent citations: 6.
  PRISONS — Prisoner’s rights — Release on licence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoner’s rights — Release on licence — Parole Board recommending conditional release on licence of life prisoner imprisoned for 40 years — Prisoner not released as funding not made available for additional support required to assist his transition into society — Whether Secretary of State and probation service in breach of statutory duty to make arrangements for prisoner’s resettlement — Whether breach of duty to co-operate with local authority to facilitate release — Whether discrimination on grounds of disability or age — Offender Management Act 2007, ss 1, 2(1) — Equality Act 2010 , ss 13, 15, 19, 29(7), 149 — Care Act 2014, s 6

  3 Statutes considered

• Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council

  27 Oct 2014 [2014] EWHC 3441 (Admin); [2015] PTSR 719; [2014] CN 1867, QBD (Ouseley J)

  05 Nov 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1107; [2016] PTSR 146; [2015] WLR (D) 445, CA

  22 Mar 2016 (appn dis) [2016] PTSR 1342, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  PLANNING — Development plan — Duty to co-operate
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PLANNING — Development plan — Duty to co-operate — Local planning authority submitting development plan for public examination — Inspector suspending examination for plan to be modified — Statutory duty to co-operate coming into force during period of suspension — Whether duty applying after submission of plan — Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 33A (as inserted by Localism Act 2011, s 110(1)

  PLANNING — Development plan — Duty to co-operate — Local planning authority submitting development plan for public examination — Inspector suspending examination for plan to be modified — Statutory duty to co-operate coming into force during period of suspension — Whether duty applying after submission of plan — Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c 5), s 33A (as inserted by Localism Act 2011 (c 20), s 110(1))

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered
• Birmingham City Council v D (In re D (A Child))

  21 Jan 2016 [2016] EWCOP 8; [2016] PTSR 1129; [2016] WLR (D) 143, Ct of Protection (Keehan J)

  31 Oct 2017 (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2017] EWCA Civ 1695; [2018] PTSR 1791, CA (Sir James Munby P, David Richards, Irwin LJJ)

  03 Jul 2018 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  26 Sep 2019 (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2019] UKSC 42; [2019] 1 WLR 5403; [2019] PTSR 1816; [2020] 2 All ER 399; [2020] 1 FLR 549; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 34.
  CHILDREN — Accommodation — Deprivation of liberty
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Accommodation — Deprivation of liberty — Incapacitated 16-year-old accommodated by local authority with parents’ consent in circumstances amounting to objective confinement — Whether parents of child aged 16 or 17 able to consent to his confinement — Whether confinement imputable to state — Whether deprivation of liberty for which court’s authorisation required — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 5 — Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c 9), s 2(5)

  CHILDREN — Accommodation — Deprivation of liberty — Incapacitated 16-year-old accommodated by local authority with parents’ consent in circumstances amounting to objective confinement — Whether parents of child aged 16 or 17 able to consent to his confinement — Whether such consent within ambit of parental responsibility for child aged 16 or 17 — Whether child’s confinement imputable to state — Whether deprivation of liberty for which court’s authorisation required — Children Act 1989 (c 41), ss 3, 20 — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 5 — Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c 9)

  CHILDREN — Accommodation — Deprivation of liberty — Incapacitated child aged 16 to 17 accommodated by local authority with parents’ consent in circumstances amounting to objective confinement — Whether parents able to consent to child’s confinement — Whether such consent within ambit of parental responsibility for child of 16 or 17 — Whether child’s confinement amounting to deprivation of liberty for which court’s authorisation required — Whether child’s Convention right to liberty violated — Observations on interpretation and applicability of statutory provisions concerning secure accommodation — Children Act 1989 (c 41), ss 3, 20(7), 25 — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 5 — Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c 9)

  21 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

• Bundesagentur für Arbeit—Familienkasse Sachsen v Trapkowski (Bundesagentur für Arbeit - Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski)

  22 Oct 2015 (Case C-378/14); EU:C:2015:720; [2016] PTSR 320; [2015] WLR (D) 423, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Social security

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Social security — Payment of family benefits where parents divorced — National law providing for payment to parent with child in household — Mother and child residing in another member state and failing to claim family benefits — Whether father could claim family benefits for child residing in other member state — Whether father entitled to family benefits because mother, residing in another member state, not making application — Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, art 67 — Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, art 60(1)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 67 — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60(1) — Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced — Definition of the ‘person concerned’ — Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household — Residence of that parent in another Member State — Failure of that parent to claim family benefits — Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits

  1 Case considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

• Littlewood v Powys County Council

  23 Jul 2015 [2015] EWHC 2125 (Admin); [2016] PTSR 45; [2015] WLR (D) 336, QBD (Holman J)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Estate agent — Prohibition on doing estate agency work
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Estate agent — Prohibition on doing estate agency work — Local authority exercising regulatory powers as lead enforcement authority — Two-stage process of investigation and adjudication devised to consider prohibition — Procedure not requiring adjudicator to hear oral representations — Whether procedure lawful — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38) (as amended by Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, ss 53, 55(2), 58 and Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading’s Functions in relation to Estate Agents etc) Order 2014 (SI 2014/631), art 5, Sch 2, para 1), ss 3, 5, Sch 2, para 2

  1 Statute considered