The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London v Tammy Samede (Representative of this persons taking part in a protest cam at St Paul’s churchyard) & 5 others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 (Lord Neuberger (MR), Stanley Burnton LJ, McFarlane LJ): The applicants applied for permission to appeal against a decision ([2012] EWHC 34 (QB) ) granting the City of London orders for possession in respect of two areas of land owned by it and occupied by the protesters, and injunctions and declarations. The Court of Appeal on dismissing the appeal held that the rights of protesters under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 were engaged in relation to the maintenance of their camp next to St Paul's Cathedral but there was no chance that they could persuade an appellate court that the judge had been wrong to order their removal (click here for the transcript).
Some of the Appellants were represented by Michael Paget.
Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) [2012] UKUT 12 (AAC) (Judge Mark): EM was a profoundly physically and mentally woman aged 20. She had lived with, and been cared for by, her parents since birth. Her parents had constructed an annex to their home for her to live in, funded by way of a mortgage. This had severely stretched their financial resources. Judge Mark had previously found that EM was not capable of entering into a tenancy agreement and consequently could have no liability to pay rent to her parents, so as to entitle her to claim housing benefit. On a request to review that decision, he set it aside. He held that EM had a liability to make payments in respect of the annex under s.7 MCA: “if necessary goods or services are supplied to a person who lacks capacity to contract for the supply, he must pay a reasonable price for them”. He held that the accommodation provided in the adapted annex was reasonably necessary having regard to EM's needs and resources (click here for the transcript).
Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 84 (Kay, Hughes and Lewison LJs): Salisbury Independent Living Ltd is a voluntary organisation providing housing and support to its tenants. It has lodged over 50 appeals against adverse council decisions regarding the housing benefit entitlements of those tenants. In all but 10 cases it provided express authorities from the tenants for it to lodge appeals on their behalf but in those 10 cases the tenants had either died or could not be traced. A tribunal struck out the 10 appeals. The Upper Tribunal had re-instated them holding that Salisbury Independent Living Ltd was able to bring the appeal. The Court of Appeal on allowing Wirral MBC’s appeal held that on a proper construction of the relevant legislation landlords had no general or freestanding appeal rights concerning the housing benefit decisions notified to their tenants (click here for the transcript).
The Respondent was represented by Jan Luba QC and Desmond Rutledge.
R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly CBC [2012] EWHC 37 Admin (HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC): the court dismissed the care home owner’s application for permission to apply for judicial review of the council’s decision to terminate its framework contract for the provision of residential care at one of its care homes, because of inadequate care provision (the court gave permission for the judgment to be cited). The court held that it was not arguable that (1) the owner was entitled to bring public law proceedings (cf. a private law contract action), (2) the owner was entitled to rely on alleged breaches of public law/ECHR duties owed by the council to care home residents, (3) the council (in any event) had been in breach of any alleged public law duty owed to the residents, (4) the council had breached the owner’s rights under Article 1 of the 1stProtocol ECHR. Click here for the transcript.
R (DM) v Doncaster MBC [2011] EWHC 3652 Admin (Langstaff J): it was not unlawful and, in particular, it was not discriminatory in breach of Articles 1 of the 1stProtocol and 14 ECHR, for a local authority to charge fees for the provision ofresidential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, even though it was detaining the resident in the accommodation, pursuant to Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005: the resident was not in the same position as persons accommodated after detention pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (for their own and the public’s protection). Click here for the transcript (Lawtel only)
