The “highly likely” test under s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act
Public law case update Q3 2025
Kinship care – latest developments
Roll up, roll up
Proposed changes to the consumer standards
The Employment Rights Act 2025 – Breakdown of Key Dates
Renters’ Rights Act 2025: What’s new for private sector housing enforcement?
HMOs and “self-contained flats”
What impact will the Renters’ Rights Act have on homelessness?
Only or Principal Home…again
Defending Age Assessment Challenges: A Guide for Local Authorities
Top-up fees: a growing risk for councils
Prohibitions orders, assessments and the HSSRS
Highways, kerbs and intervention levels
Providence Building Services Limited v Hexagon Housing Association Limited – The case for a stay
Local government reorganisation and historic liabilities
The status of co-opted members
Open Justice Principle – Where are the lines drawn in care proceedings?
What's the best way to manage conflict between colleagues in schools and colleges?
Scrutiny of professionals working in Children Act litigation
Teacher dismissed after joking about 'whacking' a pupil: was the decision fair?
Fear of harm and plans for adoption
Electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots
Issues Resolution Hearings, threshold criteria and adequacy of reasons
Foster carers and manifestation of religious belief
Contempt, disclosure failures, and information governance
The ‘Hillsborough Law’, senior leaders and prevention of critical harm
Hoarding and learning from inquests – safeguarding to prevent tragic outcomes
Judging the use of AI
The Hammad appeal – Housing authority responses to homelessness in England and Wales
Natural justice and costs in the Court of Protection
The Procurement Act 2023: 10 months on, how is it going?
Costs, detailed assessment and misconduct
Airport expansion, EIAs and emissions
Boosting localised procurement - Reform to Section 17 LGA 1988
The Autumn Budget and Public-Private Partnerships
Calculation of Biodiversity Net Gain
The new National Licensing Policy Framework
The Social and Affordable Homes Programme: key points
Caravan site licensing and planning control
From 1925 to 2025
Licence revocation appeals and a change in circumstances
Self-neglect and capacity
Renewal of telecoms leases and building safety regulation
Procurement Act 2023: Anticipating and avoiding procurement disputes
Access injunctions: legal pathways to forced access and decants
Preparing for heat network regulation: timelines, obligations, and next steps
The lost enforcement of section 21
Housing case alert - November 2025
Section 21 - It’s not over yet
Expert evidence in housing conditions claims
Inquests and Housing
Wolverhampton Traveller injunctions – where are we now?
Is there a discretion to extinguish CIL?
Balancing public interest and planning control – accommodation of asylum seekers
Meaning of father in s2 Children Act 1989
A “43 moment” for the local government workforce
Section 193 LPA 1925: public access to commons and waste land
Growing apart?
Political and mayoral assistants
PFI expiry and employees
Welsh-medium inquests and the death register
The future of housing: What procurement and contracts teams need to know
No liability for sap falling on the public highway
Weapons in Cardiff educational settings: new guidance for schools
Public Sector High Court Litigation in 2025: Key trends so far
Enjoying the challenge
Abandoning procurements: risky business
The surge in Subsidy Control litigation
Dispersal of asylum seekers
Causation and being “homeless intentionally”
Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England
Facts still very much matter
Court of Appeal rules on exclusions once again
Faith-based oversubscription criteria
How to place children abroad after Re M
Fact finding in the Court of Protection
Discrimination arising from disability: did a school discriminate against a pupil when it excluded her?
Care cases involving multiple allegations
SEND and pupils absent due to health needs
Granting of parental responsibility
Confidentiality clauses and severance payments in FE colleges and Academy Trusts
The importance of an adequate mortgagee exclusion clause
Managing AI Risks in Local Government
Reconciling Conflicting Private and Public Interests on Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects
Subsidy Control – top tips for public authorities referring measures to the CMA's Subsidy Advice Unit
Judge names council after deciding knowledge of its social services failures in care case outweighed risk of jigsaw identification of children
- Details
A judge has severely criticised the London Borough of Haringey’s child social services department, after deciding to name the council following an appeal by the Press Association over an earlier anonymity order.
Mr Justice Hayden said after hearing arguments he had been persuaded that the public interest in knowing of Haringey’s failings outweighed the potential danger of ‘jigsaw’ identification of the children involved.
Hayden J had originally concluded in A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2020] EWHC 1162 (Fam) that Haringey should not be named but regretted the press had not been given the opportunity by the parties to make representations.
The Press Association and journalist Louise Tiickle then argued in PA Media Group v London Borough of Haringey & Ors [2020] EWHC 1282 (Fam) that the public interest required identification in part because of Haringey’s poor track record starching back to the ‘Baby P’ case of 2009.
Despite his criticisms of Haringey the judge made a care order in its favour in A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2020] EWFC 38 for one child given his mother’s relationship with a convicted sex offender.
The case concerned 14-year-old A ,who has complex health and social care needs, and 12-year-old B.
Their mother fought a lengthy battle with Haringey to secure adaptations that would permit A to leave a temporary residential unit and return home.
In the course of this the boys’ father, who is separated from their mother, became abusive during court hearings to the extent that Haringey refused to deal with him.
The judge said: “Unfortunately, the situation here got to such a pass that the social services declined to speak or meet with the father. I am not convinced that was a proportionate response or a sensible one.
“It created difficulties of a different kind and contributed, in due course, to the local authority making some fundamental errors in which they fell considerably short of their obligations to safeguard and protect the children subject to these proceedings.”
Haringey’s failings worsened after it in July 2018 received an anonymous phone call saying that Schedule 1 sex offender CC was in a relationship with the mother.
CC was at the time out of prison licence, having been convicted of possessing an indecent photograph of his daughter, and was the subject of a 10-year sexual harm prevention order.
The judge said: “It is an alarming feature of this case that the local authority failed, in the initial stages, fully to appreciate the significance of the risk CC posed.
“I regret to say that social services failed in any way adequately to assess the information that was at their disposal, or easily attainable, in order to conduct a professional risk assessment.
“There appears to have been a collective professional amnesia in respect of the good practice.”
The mother appeared to see no difficulty in this relationship for her children’s welfare, an attitude the judge said, “must also be set in the context of the local authority’s own supine reaction to the danger”.
He added: “I am at a complete loss to understand how the local authority went so woefully adrift.”
At a hearing last July the question of a risk assessment was canvassed and the judge was “surprised that the local authority were resistant to such a course and wanted to proceed with the return of A to a home where the involvement of a Schedule 1 Child Sex offender had not been subject to any real professional scrutiny”
Hayden J said: “The social work failures are, in isolation, concerning. Cumulatively, they are profoundly troubling.
“They signal, to my mind, a need for significant retraining…the failure to inform the father of CC’s involvement in his son’s lives…defies comprehension.”
But he said CC’s involvement with the mother now made it impossible for A to live at home safely.
He made a care order for A, and said B should live with his father subject to a six months supervision order.
Cllr Zena Brabazon, Haringey's Cabinet Member for Children and Families, said: “The most important thing for me to note is that the children remain safe, and their wellbeing is our primary focus.
“The assessment and management of the risks to the children was completely unacceptable and fell far below the council’s usual social work practice. We recognise wholeheartedly that this judgment highlights areas where we can and must improve – many steps have already been taken and significant progress has been made."
Cllr Brabazon said: “We firmly believe that this judgment is not a reflection of our wider practice in children’s social care. Since the Ofsted inspection of 2018 we have made significant changes, and Haringey has been commended by Ofsted and its partners for its work strengthening and improving its children’s services.
“We have been carrying out our own review into what can be done better, and this will continue, along with a new, independent assessment. We have brought in additional resource and training, and are accessing expertise from some of the best services in the country. We have made real progress, but where there are still improvements to be made, we will continue to make them.
“It is our duty to protect our young people. We did not do well enough in this case, and that is being rectified now, and going forward.”
Mark Smulian







