Court agrees decision to treat claimant differently due to marital status of parents amounted to unjustified discrimination
Johnson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2386 (Admin)
The claimant was a Jamaican national born in Jamaica in 1985. He was born out of wedlock to a Jamaican mother and a British father and pursuant to the British Nationality Act 1981, s 50(9) he was not automatically a British citizen as his parents were not married. It was common ground that if his parents were […]
Challenge to London Fire Brigade cuts
London Boroughs v The Mayor of London & Ors [2013] EWHC 4142 (Admin)
Application for judicial review of the decision to adopt London Safety Plan 5. The information used in the modelling process was perfectly rational. The actual influence of the egalitarian approach on the Plan was less potent than the claimant’s contended. The influence of the Commissioner could not be fairly described as irrational. The claim was dismissed.
Secretary of State took account of prospect of severe accident when granting order for nuclear power station
R (An Taisce) v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change & Ors [2013] EWHC 4161
Application to seek permission to apply for judicial review of a development consent order for a new nuclear power station. Held: Directive 2011/92/EU should be interpreted as a whole to give it consistent effect and sensible meaning. There was a sound, reasoned and rational basis for the Secretary of State to come to his decision. The evidence showed that the Secretary of State did take into account the prospect of a severe accident.
No general requirement under EU for Member States to provide parents with particular levels of support
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors [2013] EWHC 3874 (Admin)
Whether three amending regulations were discriminatory and/or compatible with EU law. Held: the regulations did not discriminate against the claimant, nor did they breach the ECHR. There was no breach of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The defendants were fully aware of the equality implications of the proposed regulations.
Powers to safeguard children in need could be exercised outside local authority area when the child was outside of the area
R (J) v Worcestershire County Council [2013] EWHC 3845 (Admin)
The powers under the Children Act 1989, s 17(1) were capable of being exercised outside the area of the local authority and at a time when the child himself was outside that area. S 17 conferred a broad general duty and there was no evidence that Parliament intended to restrict the provisions.