Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

Other Legal Cases

Water Rates

Jones – v – London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch) 4 March 2016

It was revealed in this case that London Borough of Southwark and a number of other local authorities regarded themselves as agents in the collection of water rates for Thames Water but that they were in fact re-sellers and thus subject to the Water Resale Order 2006 which imposes maximum charges on re-sellers and allows only for modest administration charges.

Public Law Project – v – The Lord Chancellor

Public Law Project – v – The Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 1193, 25 November 2015

In September 2013 the Lord Chancellor proposed bringing in a residence test with the regard to the provision of Legal Aid.  The proposal involved an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPOA) 2012 by means of a statutory instrument.  Public Law Project (PLP) took a challenge to this proposal on the basis that it was outside the aims of LASPOA 2012 and that it was discriminatory.  Before the High Court PLP were successful.  The Lord Chancellor appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal allowed this appeal.

Hotak and Others – v – London Borough of Southwark and Others

Hotak and Others – v – London Borough of Southwark and Others [2015] UKSC 30, 13 May 2015

Housing Act 1996 Section 189 (1) identifies those who have “priority need for accommodation” as being:-

(a) A pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(b) A person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(c) A person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(d) A person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster

Akerman – Livingstone – v – Aster Communities Limited

Akerman – Livingstone – v – Aster Communities Limited [2015] UKSC 15, 11 March 2015

The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and thus concluded that disability discrimination defences to possession actions under the Equality Act 2010 do not have to face the same “seriously arguable” summary test as Article 8 defences to possession actions by local authorities.

R (Ben Hoare Bell & Others) -v- The Lord Chancellor

R ( Ben Hoare Bell, Deighton Pierce Glynn, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter) -v- The Lord Chancellor and the Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin)

In April 2014 the Government introduced Regulations which meant that, in certain circumstances, legal aid providers would not be paid for running a judicial review case. In this judgment, the High Court has found those Regulations to be unlawful.

Traveller Movement -v- Ofcom

Traveller Movement -v- Ofcom and Channel 4 [2015] EWHC 406 (Admin)

The Office of Communications (Ofcom), which is the broadcasting regulator for independent television and radio, rejected complaints from the Traveller Movement (TM) about two Channel 4 series, Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls. TM took a judicial review application against Ofcom and, on 20 February, Ouseley J dismissed the application. TM now intend to appeal this decision. A report on the case can be found on the Travellers Times website at: http://travellerstimes.org.uk/News/Traveller-Movement-to-appeal-High-Court-decision.aspx
The full judgment can be accessed at: Traveller Movement -v- Ofcom Judgment

R (Gudanaviciene & Others) -v- The Director of Legal Aid Casework & The Lord Chancellor

R (Gudanaviciene and Others) -v- The Director of Legal Aid Casework and The Lord Chancellor [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, 15 December 2014

The Court of Appeal in this case has decided that the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance on Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) is unlawful.  The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPOA) 2012, section 10 provides for ECF for certain cases that would otherwise be outside scope for Legal Aid in order to avoid, amongst other things, a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair hearing).  The Gudanaviciene case involved five Claimants who had immigration cases and who were refused exceptional funding to assist them in the court action they were involved in.

Denton -v- T H White Limited & Others

Denton -v- T H White Limited & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 906 4 July 2014

Further to the case of Groarke -v- Fontaine, the Court of Appeal have addressed this matter again and sought to give a definitive ruling on the issue in the case of Denton v T H White Limited and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 906. This case involved three appeals (all heard together) against refusal to grant sanctions by parties who had failed to comply with Court directions.

Page 1 of 212