Facts: Ms MK was an unlawful overstayer, who had become homeless. She sought accommodation and support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011. However, she was not a child, or a former relevant child, nor did she care for a child. Barking and Dagenham refused to provide her with support.

Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Bidder dismissed Ms MK’s application for judicial review, on the basis that she did not fall within section 17 and on the basis that section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 did not enable Barking and Dagenham to provide support because there was a pre-commencement restriction or limitation on its powers, found in section 17 of the CA 1989 (in that support under that provision had to be for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children), and also in section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and section 185 of the Housing Act 1985. He also held that neither Limbuela nor Clue imposed a free-standing duty to provide support.

Comment: it seems questionable whether this decision would have survived an appeal to the Court of Appeal. See now paras 20.3–20.12 and R(GS) v London Borough of Camden [2016] EWHC 1762 (Admin), (2016) 19 CCLR 398 at para 21.24 above.