Decisions & findings
Recent judgments, orders and ombudsman findings across the matters we help people prepare. Each summary links to the original publication.
These are published decisions and reports from other people’s matters. Wolfe & Black did not act in them. A judgment, an interim order and an Ombudsman report have different effects; each entry identifies its type.
The High Court ordered arrangements for accommodation in London or within reasonable travel distance of Croydon after the claimant and her children were moved to Liverpool despite an earlier decision recognising educational grounds for accommodation near the school. The order allowed the Home Secretary to seek variation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal published its decision in Next Retail Ltd and Next Distribution Ltd v Thandi and others. The judgment concerns equal pay and sex discrimination.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported fragmented access to ADHD and autism services. One cited investigation found that an NHS body wrongly denied a patient choice of provider, delaying treatment by five months.
The Family Court published CX (No 2), a judgment concerning domestic abuse and no contact. The published source identifies the case and its subject; the full judgment must be read for the court’s reasoning and orders.
The Ombudsman found severe maladministration in Notting Hill Genesis’s handling of leaks, damp and mould, service failure over an erroneous repossession notice, and maladministration in complaint handling. It ordered a further £1,100, beyond £650 already paid.
The Information Commissioner found that part of a request to the ICO itself was valid under section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act. The ICO had failed to deal with that part under section 1 and was required to issue a fresh response or a compliant refusal notice.
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint that Transport for London had not actively progressed a private hire driver licence application for several months, delayed identifying outstanding information and responded inadequately to requests for updates. It recommended an apology and payment.
Derbyshire County Council agreed to complete its overdue first-stage complaint reply by a set date and explain the right to escalate. The Ombudsman upheld complaint-handling fault but did not investigate the underlying EHCP or education-provision issues.
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint against Ealing after the council refused a Stage 3 panel in a statutory children’s complaint. The council agreed to hold the panel, make a symbolic payment and provide staff guidance and training.
The High Court declined to order mandatory interim relief without hearing the council, but shortened its time to acknowledge the claim to seven days and expedited the permission decision. The claim concerned section 19 education and an EHCP.
A three-judge panel allowed two PIP appeals, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decisions and remitted the cases. It addressed the order for considering mobility activity 1 descriptors, reliability, psychological distress and the required-period test.
Published material is summarised for general information. It is not advice on your case. We prepare cases within our permitted, non-solicitor role.