ALC publishes schedule of cases documenting damages in HRA claims involving children within care proceedings ~ Matthias Mueller, LexisNexis, Journals Manager + Online Editor, 30 JAN 2017.
The Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC) has produced a schedule of cases which documents brief case details and awards of damages arising from Human Rights Act 1998 claims made in care proceedings.
The purpose of the schedule is to provide a useful tool for ALC members and other professionals involved in family justice work.
Noel Arnold, Vice-Chair of the ALC said: ‘The ALC has heard from its members that it would be useful to have an accessible reference tool of damages awards in such cases. The ALC has responded to produce this Schedule of cases and will update it as new cases are referred in for inclusion.’
The ALC encourages readers to submit cases for inclusion in the schedule and the ‘important points to note’ on the first page explains how to do that.
The papers prepared by Kate Makepeace Grieve (36 Family) and ALC Executive Committee member, Nicola Jones-King (McMillan Williams), presented to the ALC 2016 Annual Conference are also available on the ALC website.
The schedule of cases is available to view here.
Your rights to equality from local councils, government departments and immigration ~ EQUALITIES & HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
Who is this page for?
- Individuals using a service
Which countries is it relevant to?
First published: 01 Jun 2015
This guide is for you if you are a member of the public using services provided by, or otherwise coming into contact with local councils, government departments in Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff and other public bodies in circumstances where equality law applies.
SCHEDULE OF CASES DAMAGES IN HRA CLAIMS INVOLVING CHILDREN WITHIN CARE PROCEEDINGS
Important points to note: 1. This document has been created by the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC). It remains the property of the ALC. The ALC will be responsible for maintaining the document and updating it from time to time.
2. The ALC invites practitioners to download, print, circulate and use the document but it should not be amended or changed without prior written permission of the ALC.
3. The document does not purport to be a comprehensive schedule of all cases and should not be relied on as such. The ALC hopes that the document serves as helpful reference tool. The ALC cannot regularly check that the schedule consists of all relevant cases, nor can the ALC be responsible for the accuracy of information supplied by practitioners for inclusion in the schedule.
4. The ALC, its officers and members, and contributors to this schedule do not accept liability for its contents. Use of the information contained within the schedule constitutes agreement by the user to this provision in respect of liability.
5. Practitioners are invited to contribute cases, whether reported or otherwise (including settlements reached outside of proceedings), to the schedule. To refer a case for inclusion, please provide the information that the headings of the table require to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
6. For cases which already feature in the schedule, if a practitioner recognises the cases as their own and is happy for their contact details to be included in the ‘further contact details’ column, please email the ALC.
7. The ALC is very grateful to Mr Gordon Reed (Consultant Solicitor at Messrs Sternberg Reed and Chief Assessor of the Law Society’s Children Law Accreditation Scheme) for producing a schedule of cases which the ALC has been able to lift from in order to create this schedule.
Case Name and web link Summary Award / settlement figure Issues re: legal costs Further contact details W v UK Art 8 – insufficient involvement in decision-making, termination £12,000 each P (1987) 10 EHRR 453 of contact and length of proceedings. Art 6 – non-availability of remedy Adjusted for 2016: £30,534* H v UK (1991) 13 EHRR 449 Breach of Art 6 – length of proceedings unreasonable (Nov 1978 to Jun 1981); failure of LA to notify parties of placement for adoption for 5 mths. Breach of Art 8 – delay in proceedings. Consideration of damages adjourned £12,000 Adjusted for 2016: £28,000* TP & K Mother v UK  2 FLR 549 Breach of Art 6 not found. Breach of Art 8 on basis of failure to involve in decision-making by not disclosing relevant info/docs. Breach of Art 13 – non-availability of remedy to determine allegations of LA. Breach of Art 8. 1 yr period of breach £10,000 each P Adjusted for 2016: £14,845* P, C, & S v UK  2 FLR 631 Breach of Art 6 – lack of representation; Breach of Art 8 – removal of C shortly after birth,; lack of involvement in decisionmaking €12,000 each applicant (£13,115) Venema v The Netherlands  1 FRC 13 Breach of Art 8 – non-involvement in decision-making; separation of 5 mths, distress and anxiety €15,000 collectively to Ps (£16,153 – c£8,000 each) Coventry CC v C  EWHC 2190 (Fam) Quantum of damages under s.7 agreed between recipient M and LA. Quantum not set out in transcript although there is reference to it being utilised to provide long needed therapy for M. Unknown H (A Child – Breach of Convention Rights – Damages)  EWFC 38 Birth 16.5.13; Application 29.4.14; Placement agreement 3.6.13; Final order 29.10.14. Effect on P [paras 41-46]; Declarations [paras 49-50]. Quantum [para 86]. 11 mth period of breach £6,000 each P Northamptonshire S.20 accommodation 30.1.13 (when C 15 days old); Decision to £12,000 to C County Council v AS & Ors (Rev 1)  EWHC 199 (Fam) commence proceedings 23.5.13; Application 5.11.13; Family placement 17.10.14; Final Hearing 30.1.15. LA failure to comply with directions. 10 mth period of breach £4000 to each P (NB – agreed settlement figures, not award) Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney  EWHC 2629 (QB) CoA decision:  EWCA Civ 26 Multiple cause of action – most dismissed. However, court found that s.20 agreement was not validly obtained or, in any event, was subsequently withdrawn. Police protection 5.7.07; Agreement 6.7.07; Withdrawal 13.7.07; children returned 11.9.07. 2 mth period of breach Note: decision of High Court was successfully appealed by the LA to CoA. CoA held the claims should have been dismissed and allowed the appeal £10,000 each P Re AS (unlawful removal of a child)  EWFC B150 Unlawful removal. C into foster care – 9.10.14. Legal planning meeting decides should issue s.31 proceedings – 13.10.14. Letter sent to M first informing her of foster care and intended issue – 16.10.14. Proceedings issued – 11.11.14. 1 mth period of breach £3000 to M £750 costs Medway Council v M & T  EWFC B164 Breach of Art 6 by: – Failure to issue care proceedings in a timely manner – delay of 2 yrs, 3 mths AND breaches of Art 8 by: – Unlawful removal from M’s care; – Failure obtain capacitous s.20 consent; – s.20 without consent 2 yrs, 3 mths; – Failure inform M / involve her in decision making; – Failure adequately address issues re: M and C relationship and contact; – delay in addressing the above £20,000 each for T & M Costs adjourned, then later awarded in full against LA including costs of care proceedings (no report or transcript available) Kate Makepeace Grieve, Counsel for M: (E): email@example.com Worcestershire CC v mother and B (a Breach of Arts 6 and 8 by: – delay in issue of proceedings (app to revoke placement order) for 3 yrs; – Failure to consider properly £5,000 to C LA to pay entire costs (care and child)  EWFC B10 contact between C and M (and maybe F) and the possibility of sibling contact HRA proceedings). Kent CC v M & K  EWFC 28 Breaches of Arts 6 and 8 by: – Failure issue care proceedings in a timely manner – delay of 3 yrs, 8 mths; – Failure properly assess C for 3 yrs, 4 mths; – Failure to implement care plan including failure give effect to recommendations of LAC reviews, 3 yrs, 4 mths; – As result of above, failure secure long-term placement and settled home life £17,500 to C LA to pay costs of HRA application only Thurrock BC v CW & BB 2016 Unreported Breach of Art 6 by delay in issuing care proceedings – 13 mths from commencement of accommodation to issue of proceedings. Breach of Art 8 by: – Failure to promote contact with M; – Failure to promote sibling contact; – Failure to promote contact with extended family; – Failure to provide counselling £7,500 to C (agreed between parties and approved by court) LA to pay entire costs (care and HRA proceedings). PTA to LA on issue of costs, but no appeal lodged at 12.1.17 Solicitor for the child: Gordon Reed | (E): Gordon.Reed@sternber g-reed.co.uk Royal Borough of Greenwich v C 2015 Unreported (permission given to publish on BAILII – not yet published) Application by respondent M within care proceedings. M’s application included an application for awards of damages for two C (CG did not apply). The DJ declared: 1) LA had caused the C not to be returned to M in the interim without proper evidence or cause; and 2) LA, having become aware that the evidence upon which it had relied in achieving interim separation was unreliable, failed for a period of about 7 wks to notify the court or the parties £1,000 to M which took into account ex gratia payment of £3,000 offered by LA and accepted by M prior to determination of quantum of HRA award. Awards of £2,500 to each C LA to pay M and C’s costs of an earlier hearing Nicholas Horsley, Counsel for M: (E): Nicholas.Horsley@cora mchambers.co.uk * Note: for these very old and / or European cases the updated figures were arrived at using the Kemp & Kemp inflation calculator but those figures are not necessarily reliable as the calculator is a blind inflation tool. ‘Remedies’ (2016) edited by David Emmet (Publisher: OUP) states at para. 18.104.22.168: “Generally speaking, awards more than ten years old are of little practical help.” First published: 26.1.17 Updated: 27.1.17 | 30.1.17 |