Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr Charles George QC & Mr Denis Edwards (instructed by Sinclairs Solicitors) for the Claimant Mr Peter Oldham QC (instructed by The Principal Solicitor of the Defendant) for the Defendant The Interested Party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 25 May & 18 June 2010 ____________________
In other sections of the record the author makes points about P's dependence upon his mother and upon the need to develop a care plan which will lessen that dependence.
The Claimant's solicitor's response was a very detailed pre-action protocol letter dated 4 June 2009. On18 June 2009 the Defendant provided a detailed response to the pre-action protocol letter.
This letter is clear in its terms. It indicates that the document entitled "Moving Forward Plan" prepared by Connexions was not an adequate assessment of P's needs. However it also indicates that the Interested Party was not prepared to fund a place at the Mount for P.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.