header-logo header-logo

21 September 2022
Issue: 7995 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Local government , Child law
printer mail-detail

Landmark care challenge

A former looked-after child can bring a human rights claim against council authorities for failing to remove him from the care of his mother soon enough, the Court of Appeal has agreed.

The court granted permission this month for the appeal to proceed and the landmark case is due to be heard next year.

In AB v Worcestershire County Council & Anor [2022] EWHC 115 (QB), AB (via a litigation friend) argued he should have been removed at an earlier date to save him from the abuse and neglect he suffered. He brought claims for breach of Art 3 and Art 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Margaret Obi, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, struck out the claims after a successful application by the local authorities, stating there was ‘no realistic prospect’ of the Art 3 claim succeeding, nor did the Art 6 claim disclose a legally recognisable claim.

However, AB (via his litigation friend) argued the judge had misapplied the test to determine whether a duty arises under Art 3, and sought permission to appeal, which has now been granted.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll