Bah v United Kingdom  ECHR 1448 (Application No. 56328/07, 27th September 2011) (Lech Garlicki, President, Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, Päivi Hirvelä, George Nicolaou, Ledi Bianku, Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar): The case concerned discrimination on the ground of personal status, for the purposes of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, to refuse to treat a person with indefinite leave to remain as having a "priority need" for housing under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, on the ground that her child was subject to immigration control. However, the discrimination was justified in order to fairly allocate scarce resources. (click here for transcript)
The Applicant was represented by Stephen Knafler QC.
Flynn v Basildon DC  EWCA Civ 1226: The council's decision to use its powers to enforce planning controls was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2009. In 2011, when the council decide to actually implement the clearance of the plot by direct measures, she applied for an injunction to restrain the council's action which she claimed would amount to a breach of her rights under Article 8 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The High Court refused her application mainly on the grounds that the issue had already been determined by the Court of Appeal in 2009 (and was therefore 'res judicata'). The Court of Appeal was not inclined to support that finding but nevertheless refused permission to appeal because had been right to hold that Article 8 did not entitle Mrs Flynn to a "full merits review" on her injunction application. (free transcript not available)
R(on the application of VC and others and K) v Newcastle CC  EWHC 2673 (Admin) (Munby LJ and Langstaff J): On allowing the application the Court held a local authority could not automatically withdraw, or decline to offer, support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to a child whom it had assessed to be "in need" simply on the basis that support was available under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It could only do so in the very unlikely event that it could be shown that the Secretary of State was able and willing, or could be compelled, to provide section 4 support and that the section 4 support would suffice to meet the child's assessed needs. (free transcript not available)