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 Ian Wise QC and Mr Azeem Suterwalla (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine) for the claimants Mr Christopher Baker (instructed by L.B Islington Legal Services) for the defendant Hearing dates: 20th/21st January 2016 ____________________
Section 17(10) defines a child in need to include one who is disabled. Section 17(11) defines 'disabled' to include children such as the claimants.
This is somewhat stronger than the requirement in s.11(4) to have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State.
Byas was a refusal by the Court of leave and so is not a binding authority. But, as Turner J observed, it is due considerable respect.
Since Southwark is a unitary authority, her observations do seem to assume that s.27 can apply to such an authority. But Byas was not cited and it is not clear the extent to which (if at all) s.27 was raised in argument.
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.