WebJun 17, 1999 · LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD. (RESPONDENTS) ON 17 JUNE 19999. LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON. My Lords, When the plaintiff was 10 months old, he was the subject of a care order in favour of the defendant, London Borough of Enfield. He remained in the care of the defendant council until he was aged 17. WebJun 8, 2011 · In her judgment, Laffoy J. made extensive reference to the English court decisions in R (Bernard) v Enfield LBC and Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC. In O’Donnell v …
BAILII - England and Wales Cases page 187
Web“Procedural impropriety” is the third substantive ground articulated by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] (The … WebThe service was efficient and professional. The general feedback in the one-on-one sessions and each tutorial was constructive, detailed, meaningful and generally effective in … photo of a shark
Compensation for delay in rehousing Archive Titles Building
WebMR R CLAYTON QC AND MISS J RICHARDS (instructed by Tyrer Roxburgh) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR H HARROP-GRIFFITHS (instructed by London Borough of … WebIt had not recognised that it should treat the case as a Part VII homeless case. There had been precedent, in which it was found that failure to fulfil homelessness duties … WebAug 15, 2024 · 40. Mr McKendrick QC has reminded the court of the generous ambit of Article 5.4 which entitles a person to speedy consideration by a court and in particular has referred to the case of Waite v the United Kingdom ECHR 2002. Article 5.4 is first and foremost a guarantee of a fair procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of detention. photo of a shih tzu