Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The second case to deal with the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) was R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] 2 All ER 936. The Leonard Cheshire Foundation provided accommodation in a care home for residents with disabilities whose places were being funded by a local authority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The charity decided to re-develop the home which meant that certain existing residents could not remain. The residents sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the loss of their home constituted a violation of the ECHR, art 8 (right to respect for home). The crucial question was whether the charity was exercising a public function for the purposes of the HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal adopted the criteria set out in Poplar and found that the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) did not apply to the managers of the care home. It noted that [...]. Furthermore, although the Foundation was performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers. On the facts, the Foundation was held not to be 'enmeshed' in the activities of the local authority in the same way that Poplar Housing had been.
Answer
there was no material distinction between the services they provided for residents funded by the local authority and those it provided to privately funded residents

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The second case to deal with the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) was R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] 2 All ER 936. The Leonard Cheshire Foundation provided accommodation in a care home for residents with disabilities whose places were being funded by a local authority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The charity decided to re-develop the home which meant that certain existing residents could not remain. The residents sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the loss of their home constituted a violation of the ECHR, art 8 (right to respect for home). The crucial question was whether the charity was exercising a public function for the purposes of the HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal adopted the criteria set out in Poplar and found that the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) did not apply to the managers of the care home. It noted that [...]. Furthermore, although the Foundation was performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers. On the facts, the Foundation was held not to be 'enmeshed' in the activities of the local authority in the same way that Poplar Housing had been.
Answer
?

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The second case to deal with the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) was R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] 2 All ER 936. The Leonard Cheshire Foundation provided accommodation in a care home for residents with disabilities whose places were being funded by a local authority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The charity decided to re-develop the home which meant that certain existing residents could not remain. The residents sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the loss of their home constituted a violation of the ECHR, art 8 (right to respect for home). The crucial question was whether the charity was exercising a public function for the purposes of the HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal adopted the criteria set out in Poplar and found that the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) did not apply to the managers of the care home. It noted that [...]. Furthermore, although the Foundation was performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers. On the facts, the Foundation was held not to be 'enmeshed' in the activities of the local authority in the same way that Poplar Housing had been.
Answer
there was no material distinction between the services they provided for residents funded by the local authority and those it provided to privately funded residents
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the charity was exercising a public function for the purposes of the HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal adopted the criteria set out in Poplar and found that the HRA 1998, s 6(3)(b) did not apply to the managers of the care home. It noted that <span>there was no material distinction between the services they provided for residents funded by the local authority and those it provided to privately funded residents. Furthermore, although the Foundation was performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers. On the facts, the Foundation was he

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.