Newsletter registration

Don’t refuse to mediate! Engage
Smile for the Camera?
ADHD diagnosis and disability
The coroner's duty to notify the DPP
Racist comments from one employee to another

Court of Protection case update: July 2025
Maximising ROI in renewable energy: Legal, technical, and financial strategies for net-zero success
Personal circumstances, public safety, and the planning balance
The Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets (Wales) Bill: the key provisions
Errors of law, materiality and remedies

What next for rent reviews?
Commonhold reform – the beginning of the end?
The CAT’s approach to Subsidy Decision Reviews: Fast, cheap and simple?
Millbrook Healthcare Limited v Devon County Council – Its impact on local government procurement
Early insights into the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
The section 58 defence in the Highways Act 1980
Risk assessments in care proceedings: L-G and Re T
Turbulence ahead
PFI – a new era?
Costs in discrimination claims brought by litigants in person
The Building Safety Act and retrospective service charge protection
Right to Buy (RTB) leases — be warned about service charges
Awaab’s Law – implementation of Phase 1
Seven key insights: Lord Justice Birss considers AI in civil justice
Imperative requirements in homelessness: nuts and bolts on a bumpy roadmap to suitable accommodation
Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System Panel Discussion
Employment Law Webinar Series - May to July - 42 Bedford Row
Home Truths - Dissecting Section 16J: Criminal Confusion in the Renters’ Rights Bill - 42 Bedford Row
Home Truths: Grounds for Possession under the Renters' Rights Bill - 42 Bedford Row
Airport Subsidy Challenged in the CAT
IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
What might the public inquiry on child sexual exploitation look like
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
High Court Dismisses Challenge to New Super Prison
AI, copyright and LLMs
Automatic suspensions and the public interest
FOI and communication
Too much?
Deploying ‘ADR’ in Planning & Compensation contexts
Removal from the village green register
The attendance of experts in family proceedings
Local authority enforcement powers and domestic beekeeping
Too little? When intervention is not required
Closures of educational sites
Public law case update Q1 2025
Must read

Families refusing access to support
Must read

Families refusing access to support
Blackburn with Darwen faces legal action over cuts to short breaks
Blackburn with Darwen Council faces a legal challenge over its decision to cut short breaks funding for local disabled children.
Families of two of the children affected – child A and child B – have instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings.
The case will be heard by the High Court on 31 May 2011. Irwin Mitchell said it had obtained a court order ensuring that care packages for all 21 children affected would remain in place until the court hands down its ruling.
National children’s charity KIDS currently provides the service to child A, a severely disabled seven-year-old boy, and child B, a ten-year-old girl with dyspraxia which means she suffers a number of physical injuries.
Blackburn with Darwen had told the families in late 2010 that it was no longer able to support the service from the end of this month.
Irwin Mitchell solicitor Mathieu Culverhouse claimed that the council’s decision to cut costs due to a fall in central funding was “based on a false premise”.
He argued that while ring-fencing had ended, the coalition government had announced an allocation of £800m to ensure the continuation of short break services.
The families will also argue that Blackburn with Darwen’s decision represents an infringement of their human rights as well as a breach of the Equalities Act and the Children Act.
Culverhouse added: “This is unfortunately another case where a local authority has put its cost cutting agenda ahead of the essential needs of vulnerable local residents.”
KIDS chief executive Kevin Williams said it was “simply unacceptable” for the £800m allocated for short breaks not to reach those for whom it was intended.
“I am also concerned that that council is not taking due consideration of the short breaks duty which came into effect 1 April,” he added.
Harry Catherall, deputy chief executive of Blackburn with Darwen, said the authority only commented on court cases when legal proceedings have ended.
He added: “The Council is facing unprecedented cuts to its budget, with £33m lost in one year. As a result we have been reviewing how we provide all services. Those needed by the most vulnerable members of our community, including children with disabilities, remain a priority.
“We provide all that the Government requires, and more, to help children with disabilities enjoy themselves and fulfil their potential. We have a wide range of popular services which include a variety of short break options, a sitting service, outreach and family support, and school holiday provision. We are always happy to speak to families about any difficulties they are facing."
Philip Hoult
- Details
Blackburn with Darwen Council faces a legal challenge over its decision to cut short breaks funding for local disabled children.
Families of two of the children affected – child A and child B – have instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings.
The case will be heard by the High Court on 31 May 2011. Irwin Mitchell said it had obtained a court order ensuring that care packages for all 21 children affected would remain in place until the court hands down its ruling.
National children’s charity KIDS currently provides the service to child A, a severely disabled seven-year-old boy, and child B, a ten-year-old girl with dyspraxia which means she suffers a number of physical injuries.
Blackburn with Darwen had told the families in late 2010 that it was no longer able to support the service from the end of this month.
Irwin Mitchell solicitor Mathieu Culverhouse claimed that the council’s decision to cut costs due to a fall in central funding was “based on a false premise”.
He argued that while ring-fencing had ended, the coalition government had announced an allocation of £800m to ensure the continuation of short break services.
The families will also argue that Blackburn with Darwen’s decision represents an infringement of their human rights as well as a breach of the Equalities Act and the Children Act.
Culverhouse added: “This is unfortunately another case where a local authority has put its cost cutting agenda ahead of the essential needs of vulnerable local residents.”
KIDS chief executive Kevin Williams said it was “simply unacceptable” for the £800m allocated for short breaks not to reach those for whom it was intended.
“I am also concerned that that council is not taking due consideration of the short breaks duty which came into effect 1 April,” he added.
Harry Catherall, deputy chief executive of Blackburn with Darwen, said the authority only commented on court cases when legal proceedings have ended.
He added: “The Council is facing unprecedented cuts to its budget, with £33m lost in one year. As a result we have been reviewing how we provide all services. Those needed by the most vulnerable members of our community, including children with disabilities, remain a priority.
“We provide all that the Government requires, and more, to help children with disabilities enjoy themselves and fulfil their potential. We have a wide range of popular services which include a variety of short break options, a sitting service, outreach and family support, and school holiday provision. We are always happy to speak to families about any difficulties they are facing."
Philip Hoult
22-10-2025 4:00 pm
05-11-2025 4:00 pm