House of Lords

Published March 3, 2008

Regina (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

Before Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Speeches February 27, 2008

Where a child had been provided with accommodation by a local authority’s housing department but had not come to the attention of its children’s services department, she was not entitled to further council support in her own right.

The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the applicant, M, from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Lloyd) ([2007] HLR 54) of her appeal from the refusal by Mr Justice Newman of leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council that she had not been “looked after” under section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989 and was accordingly not entitled, after reaching 18, to support under sections 23C and 24B, respectively inserted by section 2(1) and (4) and substituted by section 4(1) of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000) as a “former relevant child”.

Mr Jan Luba, QC and Mr Ian Wise for M; Mr Clive Lewis, QC and Miss Joanne Clement for the council.

LADY HALE said that the case was about the respective responsibilities of local authority children’s and housing services towards children aged 16 or 17 who were unable to live with their families.

The short point of construction was what was meant by “a child who is looked after by a local authority” as defined in section 22(1) of the 1989 Act, but the clear intention of the legislation was that those children needed more than a roof over their heads and that local children’s services authorities could not avoid their responsibilities towards them by passing them over to the housing authorities.

Early in 2005, M had become involved with the criminal justice system, and soon afterwards her relationship with her mother, with whom she was living, had broken down.

On February 4, shortly before her seventeenth birthday, she had visited the council’s housing department with a letter from her mother stating that M was no longer able to stay in her home. Part of a form had been filled in, but no more. She had approached the housing department again on April 5 with another letter from her mother, and had been sent home with a letter to her mother.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Linklaters hits record on 15% revenue rise
• Guy Hands sues Baker Tilly over tax advice
• Vodafone defeats Customs in tax fight