‘Presedent’ Revisited – Section 20 may not require consent

“To equate helpless acquiescence with consent when a parent is confronted in circumstances such as this with the misuse (or perhaps on another occasion the misrepresentation) of non-existent authority by an agent of the State is, in my judgment, both unprincipled and, indeed, fraught with potential danger…

Submission in the face of asserted State authority is not the same as consent. In this context, as in that, nothing short of consent will suffice.”

Celtic Knot Says...

Earlier today, @suesspiciousmin tweeted that a new case might have rebooted the stream of section 20 compensation claims:

untitled

I couldn’t wait for his commentary, I had to search the case out for myself, and it is this case here: London Borough of Hackney v Williams & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 26 (26 January 2017).

Not least, section 20 is an issue I’ve written about on a number of previous occasions, over a number of years, including:

A review of my previous posts will reveal that I have held to a very difficult line. On the one hand, I have defended the flexible use of section 20, against those who would argue that it is unjust to…

View original post 1,500 more words

Advertisements
This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s