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 Chris Buttler (instructed by Bindmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the claimant Mr Andrew Sharland (instructed by Worcestershire County Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the defendants Mr Jan Luba QC instructed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission appeared on behalf of the Interveners Hearing dates: 27 and 28th November 2013 ____________________
With that I, too, very respectfully agree. Section 27 is indeed concerned, as the heading in the section says, with co-operation. Nothing in section 27 "enlarges or amends" or changes the nature or scope of the functions of the requesting authority. But the practical implications of section 27 greatly illuminate what the nature and scope of those functions are.
As Mr Sharland stressed, Part 1 of Schedule 2 refers again and again to "children within their area". This is not surprising, since the general duty under section 17(1) unquestionably relates only to children within their area. There is nothing, however, within Part I of Schedule 2 which confines the actual exercise of the specified powers to exercising them within the area of the local authority, or precludes that at the point of exercising the power the child is not within their area.
i) As Lord Hope of Craighead said in R (on the application of G) v Barnet LBC and others [2003] UKHL 57 , [2004] 2 AC 208 at paragraph 92: "Section 17 refers to a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs. It is broadly expressed, with a view to giving the greatest possible scope to the local social services authority as to what it chooses to do in the provision of these services."
Section 17 confers a broadly expressed, general duty (and power) which, when it relates to the provision of services, should be purposively construed. In using the word "purposively" I am not in any way disagreeing with, or qualifying, what Mr Beatson said in Stewart at paragraph 28 ("Requiring physical presence is a clearer test than a purposive approach �"). He was considering the duty to assess. I am considering the power to provide.
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.