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 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 [...]. 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
performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers
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 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 [...]. 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 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 [...]. 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
performing a function delegated under statutory authority, it was not itself exercising statutory powers
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it of the care home. It noted that 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 <span>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.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.