The High Court disagreed and, drawing on domestic case law,

mamunur6547

BC’s lawyer argued it was sooner that than that, but the Court rejected this. The High Court relied on existing law which requires a local authority to play a clear role in arranging accommodation for the child: “Whilst there is no requirement that the local authority must provide the accommodation itself, a local authority must be shown to have facilitated the arrangements or “played a role” for the child to be accommodated”. Paragraph ; emphasis added – citing from Southwark LBC v D  EWCA Civ  Evidence that the local authority played a central or significant role in making sure BC had accommodation at K’s mother’s house was drawn from records documenting contact between the council and BC’s mother and K’s mother,.


And various notes showing that, for instance, the council referred to BC as being hom Guangdong Mobile Number List eless. Does the council owe BC leaving care duties? Yes. As BC spent weeks as an accommodated child in K’s mother’s house, he acquired ‘qualifying young person’ status under section of the Children Act Had BC accrued at least another weeks as an accommodated child, he would now be entitled to all care leaver entitlements up to the age of . Should the council have exercised its discretion to treat BC as a care leaver? – This question would only apply if the Court answered ‘no’ to questions and This question became not applicable after the High Court ‘answered’ the first three questions with a ‘yes’. Should the Court refuse permission for this judicial review because of a delay in bringing the claim?





The council submitted that BC’s judicial review claim was “manifestly” late – it should have been made by the end of within three months of the local authority’s refusal to accommodate BC but was instead made in August concluded that the council’s unlawful failure to treat BC as a looked after child was a “continuing breach of its obligations under section ” in that the council still had ongoing legal duties towards BC as a qualifying young person. Furthermore, BC’s lawyer argued that BC was not aware of his rights when the failings took place. The High Court agreed and cited existing case law: “It is self-evident that most troubled and year old children will be unaware of the services available to assist them, and it is equally self-evident that the onus is not on children in need to identify and request the services they require”.