In R (Barking and Dagenham LBC) v SoS for Health (2017) EWHC 2449 (Admin) Barking and Dagenham Council (“Barking”) challenged a decision by the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Health, that the second interested party, HR, was ordinarily resident in its area for the purposes of the provision of care services to him. As a consequence, Barking assumed responsibility for funding HR’s care. Barking contended that HR’s care should be funded by the London Borough of Redbridge, the First Interested Party, the authority for the area where HR grew up and was physically resident until he moved to accommodation in Barking in August 2012. Read more »

The issue in Forge Care Homes Ltd v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board (2017) UKSC 56 was whether it is the NHS or local authorities (with means-tested contributions from clients) who are responsible for paying for the work done by registered nurses not only in health care settings but also in social care settings.  The Supreme Court, allowing an appeal by local authorities has unanimously held that, on the correct interpretation of Section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (exclusion of nursing care from community care services), it is the NHS who are responsible for the payment. Read more »

Individuals claim to be an unaccompanied child asylum seeker.  The local authority assesses their ages.  It decides that they are not children, they are not under 18.  On that basis it has no functions in relation to them under the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). However, pursuant to CA 1989, the authority had been providing services pending its assessment.  At the same time that the authority provided reasons for its age assessment decision it stopped providing their services.  That was in accordance with its policy or practice.  Is that policy or practice of simultaneous over 18 age assessment decision and withdrawal of services under CA 1989 unlawful, as being procedurally unfair and contrary to ECHR Article 8?  Read more »

In R (Forsey) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court (2017) EWHC 1152 (QB) the claimant was prosecuted as a director of a company which entered into administration, and whose 84 employees at a warehouse were made redundant. It was alleged that the company committed an offence by failing to notify the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (“the SoS”) in writing of a proposal to dismiss and make redundant 20 or more employees. The claimant is said also to be guilty on the basis that he had consented to, connived at, or neglected to prevent this failure. The failure was alleged to be contrary to Section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”). Read more »

The three appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in cases including Focus Care Agency Ltd v Roberts, UKEAT/0143/16/DM, consider the proper approach to the question whether employees who “sleep-in” in order to carry out duties if required engage in “time-work” for the full duration of the night shift, or whether they are entitled to the National Minimum Wage, under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and 2015, only when they are awake and carrying out relevant duties. Read more »

On 27 April 2017 the Children and Social Work Act 2017 received the Royal Assent. It makes provision about looked-after children, makes other provision in relation to the protection and welfare of children, and (Part 2) makes provision for a specialist new regulatory regime for social workers in England. The 2017 Act provides the legislative framework to support a programme of reform in children’s social care set out in the Government’s July 2016 Policy Paper “Putting Children First”, and responds to reviews of social work education.

The Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”) contains coercive powers.  Section 20, however, is not intended to, and does not create powers of compulsion.  Section 20 falls within Part III of CA 1989, the essence of which is an emphasis on the assumption of responsibility for care and the provision of accommodation in circumstances which are voluntary.  Section 20(1) imposes a duty upon a local authority to provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of defined situations.  However, Section 20(6) states that, before providing accommodation, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare, ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the provision of accommodation, and give due consideration to such wishes and feelings as they have been able to ascertain; Section 20(7) states that (in the case of a child under 16) a local authority may (generally) not provide accommodation if any person who has parental responsibility for the child and is willing and able to provide accommodation for the child or arrange for accommodation to be provided for the child, objects; and Section 20(8) provides that any person who has parental responsibility may (generally) at any time (without any requirement for notice) remove the child (under 16) from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority.  Section 20 imposes a duty on the relevant local authority to provide accommodation to children if the conditions of subsection (1) or (3) are met; and a discretion to do so if the conditions of subsection (4) or (5) apply; but all this is subject to subsections (7) to (11). There is a vital distinction between voluntary assumption of care and the provision of accommodation on the one hand, and compulsory care, for example by an Emergency Protection Order pursuant to Section 44, or police powers under Section 46, on the other. Read more »