November 2015 - Page 4 of 29

Refusal to grant special care order upheld as alternative care options not exhausted

By: Decisis

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a father acting on behalf of his 16-year-old son, challenging the Child and Family Agency's decision not to apply for a special care order. The High Court had previously refused to quash the Agency’s decision, finding it reasonable and rational, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that outcome. The court held that the Agency had properly exercised its expert judgment and was not irrational in concluding that alternative care options for the child had not been fully exhausted. It found that reasons for the Agency’s decision were adequately conveyed and that it could disagree with the referring social work team without being irrational, especially given that special care is to be used only as a measure of last resort. The appeal was therefore refused.

Applicants awarded costs in challenge to personal injury compensation guidelines after landmark decision in lead case

By: Decisis

The High Court granted an application for costs to three applicants who had sought judicial review challenging the application of personal injury guidelines to their compensation claims. After leave was granted, their cases were effectively paused to await the outcome of a separate, similar 'lead' case, which resulted in a Supreme Court declaration that the relevant legislative provision was unconstitutional. Although no final relief was granted in the present proceedings, the court concluded that the applicants had acted reasonably and prudently, and were therefore entitled to recover their legal costs up until the time the lead case was determined, as well as the costs of this costs application.

Application for leave to challenge deportation order refused despite claims of risk of violence in Somalia

By: Decisis

The High Court refused an application by a Somali national seeking leave to challenge the Minister's refusal of permission to remain and a related deportation order. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to properly assess the risk of indiscriminate violence and other harms in Somalia, as well as the applicant's rights under European and domestic law. However, the court found that the relevant protections and risk assessments had already been considered at earlier stages by protection authorities and that no new evidence or legal obligation required a further assessment at the deportation stage. As there was no stateable or substantial legal ground identified for challenging the decision, leave to proceed with judicial review was refused.

Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.

Register Now

Ad1

Refusal to grant special care order upheld as alternative care options not exhausted

Applicants awarded costs in challenge to personal injury compensation guidelines after landmark decision in lead case

Application for leave to challenge deportation order refused despite claims of risk of violence in Somalia

New Judgments

Login

ABOUT US

Contact Us