Fiona Scolding KC and Galina Ward KC review recent cases in education law and provide insight and practical tips for both public bodies and individuals litigating in this area.

The second episode considers how the courts are approaching attempts to enforce the statutory requirements that cash strapped local authorities are increasingly failing to meet, including the ongoing debate about the boundary between education and social care and how to approach recommendations made under the National Trial (R (LS) v LB Merton [2024] EWHC 584 (Admin)), the circumstances in which a mandatory order will be made requiring the LA to provide what is specified in an EHCP (R (HXN) v London Borough of Redbridge [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)), and the time limits for statutory assessment following a successful appeal (R (W) v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin).

Fiona Scolding KC and Galina Ward KC review recent cases in education law and provide insight and practical tips for both public bodies and individuals litigating in this area.

Fiona and Galina have between them been involved in litigating almost every facet of education law. In the first episode they discuss the approach of the courts in recent cases under the Human Rights Act and Equality Act in the context of the Michaela School prayer ban, including the extent to which the ability to pray in school engages Article 9 of the ECHR, justification for any interference with that right, and whether the ban was discriminatory (R (TTT) v Michaela School [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin)) , as well as the application of the PSED when preparing EHCPs (R (AI) v LB Wandsworth & Secretary of State for Education [2023] EWHC 2088) and the need (or otherwise) for medical evidence to trigger a requirement for reasonable adjustments (Bristol University v Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299).

Part 2 will be released next week.

The Brook House Inquiry was a public inquiry instigated following revelations by Panorama of abuse potentially amounting to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Alex Goodman KC and Stephanie Harrison KC have between them been involved in most of the leading cases on immigration detention over the past twenty years. They discuss the Brook House Inquiry and the history of the detention of immigrants in the UK. Essential listening for anyone interested in human rights or immigration.

Justin Bates, Harriet Wakeman, and Barney McCay discuss the case of R (Imam) v Croydon LBC which is being heard at appeal in the Supreme Court on 4 and 5 May in this ten-minute video.

The Landmark barristers are acting pro bono for Crisis (instructed by Giles Peaker at Anthony Gold Solicitors) in the appeal. Crisis, the UK national charity for homelessness, is acting as intervenor. The appeal concerns the nature of the duty owed by local housing authorities to homeless people under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, (i.e. the provision of “suitable” housing) and how to enforce a breach of the duty.

The appeal will have significant ramifications for those living in temporary accommodation, many of whom are already negatively impacted by being housed there. Crisis has been granted permission to intervene in order to assist the Supreme Court in understanding the potential impact of its decision in this case on those living in temporary accommodation, and to provide wider context to the appeal.

Alex Goodman KC discusses campaigning and the law with people who have shaped our society and shaped our law.

In this first episode, he talks to Harriet Wistrich, Founding Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, about her 25 years of work campaigning for women’s rights and for reform of the Met Police. They discuss campaigning through a look at the Black Cab rapist litigation, the law relating to women who kill their partners, immigration detention and others.

The series is produced by Landmark Chambers’ Public Interest Law Group.

Landmark barristers review the key factors in R (Day) v Shropshire Council in which judgment will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

The case is a challenge to the grant of planning permission on land that was part of a recreation ground and raises the question:

When a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational purposes and fails to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, does that trust continue or end; and, in either case, what are the legal implications for the authority and the disponee?

Alex Goodman and Kimberley Ziya acted for the Claimant (the Appellant in the Supreme Court).

Landmark barristers review the key factors in the upcoming Jepsen & Ors v Rakusen Supreme Court case.

The judgment of this case will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

Can a Rent Repayment Order only be made against an immediate landlord or can a superior landlord also be liable?

Tom Morris appeared for the respondent landlord in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal.

Justin Bates and Charles Bishop made written submissions on behalf of Safer Renting, which intervened in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

This is a critically important test case which will have significant effects on the private rented sector. It turns on whether a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against the superior landlord of an occupier of housing, or only the occupier’s immediate landlord. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that landlords can rely on ‘rent-to-rent’ companies to shield themselves from rent repayment orders being made against them.