Local Government Lawyer

Government Legal Department Vacancies


Newsletter registration

Subscribe

* indicates required
Practice/Interest Area(s) (tick all that apply)
Join our other mailing lists (tick to subscribe)

Local Government Lawyer and Public Law Jobs will use the information you provide on this form to send your requested newsletters and updates. Please tick the box below to authorise us to send the email newsletter(s) and alerts requested above.

You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at info@localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk. We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Parties to an age assessment dispute are free to settle their differences out of court and are not required to lay any additional material or evidence before the court for judicial scrutiny, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In R(J) v Leicestershire County Council, heard on 2nd July, the Court of Appeal refused the permission to appeal the refusal of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber), when presented with a consent order recording the parties’ agreement as to the claimant’s date of birth, to grant the appellant a declaration as to his age.

Richards LJ described as "nonsensical" the proposition advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Upper Tribunal Judge was bound to follow the practice adopted in R(N) v LB Croydon [2011] EWHC 862 (Admin) and R(AS) v LB Croydon [2011] EWHC 2091 (Admin) of scrutinising the evidence and making a declaration notwithstanding the agreement of the parties as to the claimant’s date of birth (in the former case an exercise which had occupied the court for a day and a half).

The freedom for parties in age assessment disputes to come to an agreement outside court is subject to the requirements of 54APD.17.1 (short statement of reasons supporting agreed order in judicial review proceedings) and, where the claimant is a child, CPR21.10 (approval of compromise), the judge added.

Kelvin Rutledge QC of Cornerstone Barristers appeared for Leicestershire CC.


Jobs

Poll


 

Past issues

Local Government


Governance (subscribe)


Housing (Subscribe)


Social Care and Education (subscribe)

 


Place (subscribe)

 

Events

Directory