A family are homeless, but not intentionally. They are in priority need. The local housing authority has (1) made a decision that their existing accommodation is not “suitable” for their needs and (2) accepted that it has a duty, under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, to provide accommodation. In AM v Newham (2020) EWIC 327 (Admin) it is held by Linden J, following a review of the relevant case law, that the authority is in continuing breach of its duty if it leaves them in their existing accommodation, even for a short period, and even if a reasonable time is required in which to secure suitable alternative accommodation.
Election Expenses
February 28th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsThe primary purpose of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order2020, S.I. 2020/190, is to provide that “election expenses” are not to count towards a candidate’s spending limit to the extent that they are reasonably incurred and reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability.
Borrowing
February 25th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Capital Finance and CompaniesFollowing Consultation in 2016, the Public Works Loan Board (“the PWLB”) has been abolished by the Public Bodies (Abolition of Public Works Loan Commissioners) Order 2020, S.I. 2020/176.
PSED/ECHR Articles 6 & 14
February 21st, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn R (Leighton) v Lord Chancellor (2020) EWHC 336 (Admin), Cavanagh J considered allegations including breaches of the PSED under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2020 and of Article 6 of the ECHR or Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 6.
Unjustified Enrichment
February 21st, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn Vodaphone v OFCOM (2020) EWCA Civ 183, the Court of Appeal has held that assessment of a claim for restitution, under the principle in Woolwich Equitable BS v IRC (1993) AC 70, that a public authority could not retain a fee collected without lawful authority, did not involve consideration of any counterfactual situation.
Vicarious Liability
February 21st, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn Haringey LBC v FZO (2020) EWCA Civ 180, the Court of Appeal held that the Council, which was the employer of a teacher, was vicariously liable for the teacher’s acts in grooming and sexually abusing a 13-year old pupil during his school years and thereafter, but in the teacher’s private time and not at school. The Court addressed not only vicarious liability, but also limitation, “consent” (conditioned consent, resulting from a grooming process, was not true consent), and causation.
Appropriation of Allotment Land
February 19th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesOn 13 May 2019 this Bulletin noted the decision in R (Adamson) v Kirklees MBC, in which an allotment holder’s claim succeeded, on the basis that the land had been appropriated for use as allotments, within Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925.
Investigation and Decision
February 17th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsUddin v London Borough of Ealing, UKEAT/0165/19/RN, concerned the dismissal of the Claimant by reason of misconduct. One of the issues arose from the fact that the complainant who alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour towards her by the Claimant had withdrawn a complaint to the police, but the Council’s manager, who took the decision to dismiss, who knew that the complaint had been made, was not told by the Council’s investigating officer that the complaint had been withdrawn. The EAT held that the fact that the investigating officer, who did know the complaint had been withdrawn, did not pass this on to the disciplinary decision maker, rendered the dismissal unfair, applying Royal Mail v Jhuti (2019) UKSC 55, on the reason for the dismissal, to the reasonableness of the dismissal decision: see Judge Auerbach in the Ealing case at paragraphs 71-78, concluding, with respect to Jhuti in the Supreme Court:-