Search for: "The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea"
Results 41 - 60
of 88
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2014, 3:09 pm
While MS T also argued, via Harouki v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1000, that the ‘stage 1′ and ‘stage 2′ exercise were clearly interrelated, Jackson LJ found: When I stand back and look at the provisions of the statute, I can see that Parliament has established different sets of rules for the stage 1 exercise and the stage 2 exercise. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:31 am
For the reasons given below, the Court has decided that there was no breach of Article 8 ECHR following the reduction in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s care services package for Ms McDonald, except for a period from November 2008 to November 2009, when her care needs were not met. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 5:27 am
He contended that the reviewing officer’s decision was unlawful because European jurisprudence required her to consider, when considering if he was temporarily unable to work, whether there was any chance of Mr Samin returning to work.Unfortunately for Mr Samin, by the time the appeal was heard the Court of Appeal had already considered the question in two other appeals, namely De Brito v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 709 and Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and… [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 5:27 am
He contended that the reviewing officer’s decision was unlawful because European jurisprudence required her to consider, when considering if he was temporarily unable to work, whether there was any chance of Mr Samin returning to work.Unfortunately for Mr Samin, by the time the appeal was heard the Court of Appeal had already considered the question in two other appeals, namely De Brito v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 709 and Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and… [read post]
11 Nov 2012, 4:15 pm
There is a considerable shortage of all sorts of property within the borough. [read post]
11 Nov 2012, 4:15 pm
There is a considerable shortage of all sorts of property within the borough. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 6:44 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anor v Leofelis SA [2012] EWCA Civ 985 (23 July 2012) Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 980 (20 July 2012) O’Cathail v Transport for London [2012] EWCA Civ 1004 (20 July 2012) Michael & Ors v South Wales Police & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 981 (20 July 2012) Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 982 (20 July… [read post]
22 May 2012, 3:12 am
El Goure v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 670; [2012] WLR (D) 155 “Although the legislation did not lay down the criteria of special circumstances in relation to priority need for housing homeless persons, a separated parent’s reasonable expectation that his children, who were living with their other parent, would move to live with him did not impose an obligation on the local housing authority to consider the… [read post]
18 May 2012, 3:48 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) Maswaku v Westminster City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 669 (18 May 2012) El Goure v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 670 (18 May 2012) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Wolman v Weller [2012] EWHC 1292 (QB) (18 May 2012) High Court (Chancery Division) Humber Oil Terminals… [read post]
16 May 2012, 2:47 am
“De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin).This was a judicial review of RBK&C’s refusal to provide support under s.21 and s.29 National Assistance Act 1948 and indeed to carry out an assessment under s.47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:02 pm
De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) – Read judgment This was a judicial review of RBK&C’s refusal to provide support under s.21 and s.29 National Assistance Act 1948 and indeed to carry out an assessment under s.47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) This was a judicial review of RBK&C's refusal to provide support under s.21 and s.29 National Assistance Act 1948 and indeed to carry out an assessment under s.47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) This was a judicial review of RBK&C's refusal to provide support under s.21 and s.29 National Assistance Act 1948 and indeed to carry out an assessment under s.47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 8:42 am
Three decisions of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal on HB matters stand out: SS v North East Lincolnshire Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 300 (AAC); MB v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HB) [2011] UKUT 321 (AAC); MR v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 284 (AAC). [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 8:42 am
Three decisions of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal on HB matters stand out: SS v North East Lincolnshire Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 300 (AAC); MB v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HB) [2011] UKUT 321 (AAC); MR v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 284 (AAC). [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 11:31 pm
comes courtesy of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s new rent deposit scheme. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 3:51 pm
I intend no criticism of the Judge in this connection, but, with hindsight, it would have been better if he given a little more reasoning on this point in his judgment.In a second appeal in a Part VII matter, the Court of Appeal’s function is normally to review the s.202 decision, rather the s.204 appeal decision, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v Danesh [2006] EWCA Civ 1404. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 3:51 pm
I intend no criticism of the Judge in this connection, but, with hindsight, it would have been better if he given a little more reasoning on this point in his judgment.In a second appeal in a Part VII matter, the Court of Appeal’s function is normally to review the s.202 decision, rather the s.204 appeal decision, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v Danesh [2006] EWCA Civ 1404. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm
A further warning on the nature and extent of disclosure of material facts comes in R (On the application of Konodyba) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] EWHC 2653 (Admin [Not on Bailii]. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm
A further warning on the nature and extent of disclosure of material facts comes in R (On the application of Konodyba) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] EWHC 2653 (Admin [Not on Bailii]. [read post]
