A party seeking to restrict another's commercial activities must consider whether such terms are normal in similar, factual and contractual circumstances.
R (on the application of MT) v Oxford City Council
The Claimant (“MT”) had a mental disability that meant he was unable to manage his property and financial affairs. MT had been living at home and was being cared for by his family. The family became unable to provide this care and in October 2011 MT applied to be placed on the Local Authority’s housing register. The application was rejected on the basis that the Local Authority had no duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) because MT did not have the capacity to make the application. The Local Authority relied on the House of Lords case of R v Oldham MBC ex parte Garlick  where it was held that an applicant had to be capable of accepting or rejecting an offer of accommodation.
MT applied for judicial review submitting that the Local Authority’s decision was inconsistent with Article 14 ECHR. MT also argued that the decision in Garlick was no longer good law because it was discriminatory towards those who lack capacity, contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR, when read together with Article 8 (a right to respect for private and family life).
The application was refused and the decision in Garlick was held to be determinative. The High Court noted that the 1996 Act was implicit in its provisions that accommodation was only available to those who had capacity to accept an offer. The High Court held that MT was not being refused public housing and was only being refused as an applicant for housing as homeless under the part 7 of the 1996 Act. He could still be assessed under the National Assistance Act 1948.
Although the High Court has refused permission to appeal, it will be interesting to see if a further application to appeal is made, as this decision raises some questions about the limited routes into housing for persons deemed to be lacking capacity.
For more information
Should you wish to discuss the implications of this case further please contact Helen Tucker on 0121 212 7459, email@example.com or Rose Klemperer on 0121 214 3504, firstname.lastname@example.org
This ebriefing considers the Government’s proposals for challenges, as set out in Chapter 7 of the Green Paper entitled 'Fast and fair challenges'.
We’re delighted to announce that we have been ranked in the top five national legal advisers in the Top 3000 Charities 2021 directory.
The Law Commission published its report on Technical Issues in Charity Law in September 2017 following a public consultation.
Changing charitable purposes and amending governing documents.
Charity registration financial thresholds.
One of the stated aims of the Green Paper is “to deliver the best commercial outcomes with the least burden on the public sector".
The proposals concerning dynamic purchasing systems (DPS) and framework agreements are the most disappointing aspect of the Green Paper.
Family team partner, Elizabeth Wyatt, is delighted to congratulate Kadie Bennett for attaining Resolution Specialist Accreditation in both children law - private and complex financial remedy matters.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.