Success stories
The below is a list of some of the cases where we have been succesful in achieving remedy for our clients. It is by no means comprehensive. More information and stories are available in our Five Year Review and Impact Report, 2006 - 2011available here.
In 2012, as part our destitute migrant families project, PLP has successfully represented children of destitute migrant families facing homelessness to secure financial and accommodation support from their local authority. These cases have all settled without the need for proceedings to be issued.
26 July 2012 – the High Court has granted permission to the judicial review against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ challenging the Work Capability Assessment for Employment Support Allowance that is carried out by the private contractor, Atos Healthcare. PLP is bringing the case on behalf of two individuals with mental health problems who are claiming that the system is discriminatory and needs to be changed. The mental health charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness are also intervening in the case in support of the claimants. Press release here.
July 2012 – following a case that went part heard, the Official Receiver agreed that discretion ought to be exercised not to revoke a Debt Relief Order.
March 2012 – PLP intervened persuasively in the case of JD (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2012] EWHC 2196 (Admin) which concerned the restrictive application of the second appeals test to increase access to the Court of Appeal for individuals fearing torture and persecution.
1 March 2012 – PLP, acting as the claimant, successfully challenged the Legal Services Commission’s decision to end the special support services without proper consultation. On 1 March the LSC confirmed that they would not defend the claim and would instead carry out a full and lawful consultation process as PLP had requested. Press release here.
14 December 2011 – SSWP v Payne and Cooper - the PLP successfully established in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court that the Government was acting unlawfully in deducting monies from the welfare benefits payments of people subject to Debt Relief Orders (DROs). Such people are by definition the very poorest in UK society. Statistics obtained under Freedom of Information laws indicate that at least 565 people per quarter will be positively affected by the outcome of this one PLP case. Press release here.
November 2011 - Medical Justice Case, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the High Court quashing the policy of “no notice removal” of immigrants (including people at risk of suicide and self-harm, and unaccompanied children) facing deportation. The case established that this policy breached a person’s fundamental right to have access to legal advice, thereby ensuring those affected meaningful access to the court. Press release here.
July 2011 – PLP’s intervention in the case of Bahta & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department resulted in the Court of Appeal ruling that claimants can recover costs in judicial review cases that are settled before trial. This ruling is important in helping to discourage Defendant’s from taking a “wait and see” approach and to address allegations of wrong-doing and illegality at a much earlier and more appropriate stage.
22 June 2011 – PLP intervened persuasively in the case of R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2010] EWCA Civ 859 in which the Supreme Court held that un-appealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal were subject to judicial review by the High Court where there was an important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reasons for the case to be reviewed that was equivalent to the test for second appeals. Press summary here.
23 March 2011 – R (Lumba & Mighty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
PLP acted for the lead claimant in a successful judicial review challenge against UK Border Agency. The UK Supreme Court effectively held that all foreign nationals detained by UKBA on completion of their prison sentence, between April 2006 and September 2008, were falsely imprisoned. The Supreme Court delivered a scathing criticism of the Government for detaining otherwise time-served foreign nationals pursuant to a policy described as “secret” and “hidden”. The secret policy required detainees to be held indefinitely and regardless of whether they posed any risk to the public. Press release here.
Monday 26 July 2010
Today, in the case of R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Office1, the High Court quashed the UK Border Agency (UKBA) policy to give less than the standard 72 hours notice of removal from the UK in certain “exceptions” categories (the “exceptions policy”).
For full judgement click here. For press release click here.
The exceptions policy operated by UKBA since January 2010 has been to give reduced notice, or no notice, of removal in five categories of case. These categories include vulnerable people who are at risk of suicide or self-harm and unaccompanied children. This has been on the basis that the Home Secretary believes that giving the standard notification is not in their best interests. The Home Secretary justified the policy on the basis that whenever the exceptions policy was operated certain safeguards were in place, in particular to ensure that those due to be removed had “effective access to the courts”.
The claim was brought by, Medical Justice, a charity which facilitates the provision of independent medical and legal advice to immigration detainees (http:/www.medicaljustice.org.uk).
It is represented by the Public Law Project. For further information please contact Diane Astin on 0207 843 1262.
9 March 2009
Harlow District Council breached its statutory duties towards vulnerable individuals. In an important judgment for the people of Harlow, the High Court has ruled that the council failed to discharge its duties towards disabled people, women and black and ethnic minority residents. Mr Justice Davis so held in upholding a claim for judicial review brought by three local people, Geraldine Meany, Pat Glyn and Greig Sanders, who challenged a decision by the council to reduce the budget for funding advice on social welfare matters (such as debt, homelessness, and welfare benefits) by 80%, from £500,000 to £100,000. The Public Law Project acted for the service users.
For press release click here.
21 July 2008
-
High Court victory for BME women’s group challenging their funder under the Race Relations Act
- Ealing Council concedes and agrees to hold new process on deciding funding for domestic violence services in the borough
In a key judicial review case brought by the Public Law Project about how local authorities should approach the funding of specialist services for black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, a two-day trial finished early when the Defendant Council agreed to withdraw their decision and start the decision-making process again.
For press release click here.
1 July 2008
In an important judgment the Court of Appeal has clarified the basis on which public interest litigation may be brought. The case concerned a challenge to decisions by Wiltshire Primary Care Trust (the PCT) to terminate services provided at the Day Unit and the Minor Injuries Unit of Savernake Hospital in Wiltshire. A legal challenge to the proposed changes is being brought by Ms Val Compton, a former nurse and local citizen, and a member of the campaign group “Community Action for Savernake Hospital“, with the benefit of pro bono representation by counsel obtained through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The Public Law Project intervened in the case on behalf of Ms Crompton's case.
For press release click here.
20 December 2007
- High Court finds that Council acted unlawfully and ignored rights of disabled people
- Harrow Council forced to reconsider new policy withdrawing care services from 100s of residents
In a key case about disability rights and the provision of care services for 100s of people, a judge found a local council had acted unlawfully when introducing its new policy because it had breached its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act. The case, brought by the Public Law Project (PLP) on behalf of three service-users in Harrow, was a challenge to Harrow Council’s decision in July this year to restrict the care services it currently provides to people with critical needs only, withdrawing care from those who had substantial needs.
For press release click here.
8 November 2007
- High Court judge finds that Compact is “more than a wish list – a commitment of intent”
- Service-user entitled to bring challenge against charging even if she will not be liable for charges
In the first case to consider whether a breach of the Compact was unlawful, a judge has confirmed that local authorities should consider the Compact when making decisions. The case also recognised that individual service-users could bring challenges even if they might not be directly affected by a decision. The case, brought by the Public Law Project (PLP) on behalf of Mrs Helen Berry, related to a challenge brought by an individual service-user against a decision by Cumbria County Council to introduce day care charging across the county.
For press release click here.
Consultancy