|
CO/1800/01
DATED the 14th day of September 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
IN THE MATTER of a claim for Judicial Review
THE
QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GUARDIANS AD LITEM
AND REPORTING OFFICERS
VERSUS
CHILDREN AND FAMILY COURT ADVISORY AND SUPPORT SERVICE
UPON
READING the amended Claim form herein dated the 24th day of
July 2001 filed on behalf of the above-named Claimant together with
the statement lodged pursuant to Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules
for Judicial Review of the decision of the Defendant dated the 6th
day of July 2001 to offer all currently self-employed Guardians
contracts on an employed contract of service basis only –
AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT:-
1. a
quashing order
2. a stay
AND
UPON READING the witness statements of Susan Bindman dated the 1st
day of May 2001, the 5th
and 23rd days
of July 2001 and the 21st day of August 2001 together with
the exhibits referred to therein filed on behalf of the Claimant in
support of this claim
AND
UPON READING the
witness statement of David Lye dated the 27th day of June 2001 the witness statements of Diane Shepherd
dated the 27th day
of June 2001 and the 13th
day of August 2001 the witness statement of Joe Kuipers dated
the 27th day of July 2001 and the witness statement of
Sarah Carrington dated the 31st day of August 2001 together
with the exhibits referred to therein filed on behalf of the Defendant
AND
UPON HEARING Counsel
for the parties Mr M. Horowitz QC with Mr R. Spon-Smith on behalf of
the Claimant and Mr R.McCarthy QC on behalf of the Defendant
UPON THE
DEFENDANT BY LEADING COUNSEL UNDERTAKING TO THE COURT THAT:
1. CAFCASS
will treat all self-employed Guardians no less
favourably than at present until completion of the consultation
process as to what it will do about self-employed contracts;
2. CAFCASS
will keep the offer of a contract of employment as set
out
in its letter of 6 July 2001 open until completion of the
consultation
process;
3. These
proceeding undertakings are subject to the following
qualifications;
REGIONS
WHICH AT PRESENT HAVE A MIXED ECONOMY
(EMPLOYED
AND SELF EMPLOYED)
4. CAFCASS will endeavour
in each case to appoint a Guardian in accordance with the existing system of
allocation from the existing members of employed and self-employed Guardians in
the regions. If it is unable to do so then it shall be at
liberty to employ a new Guardian under a contract of employment so as
to enable the Guardians role in the case to be fulfilled;
REGIONS
WHICH AT PRESENT HAVE SOLELY SELF
EMPLOYED GUARDIANS
5. CAFCASS
will endeavour in each case to appoint a Guardian from within the
existing number of self-employed Guardians in the Region. If it is
unable to do so then it will be at liberty to employ a new Guardian
under a contract of employment so as to enable the Guardians role in
the case to be fulfilled;
6. It
is understood and accepted by the parties that if a Guardian has been
employed by CAFCASS in the circumstances set out in
5 or 6 above that CAFCASS will thereafter be entitled to
continue to employ that person as a children’s Guardian
IT IS ORDERED that
this application be allowed and that the said decision of the
Defendant dated the 27th day of June 2001, not to offer
self-employed status to children’s guardians be removed into the
Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice and that the
Defendant do forthwith send the said decision or a copy thereof to the
Master of the Administrative Court Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2 and that thereupon the said decision be quashed
IT IS ALSO
ORDERED that:
1. The
Defendants do pay to the Claimants their costs of the application
relating to the decision of 27 June, to be subject to detailed
assessment if not agreed;
2. Liberty
to apply as a matter of urgency as to the Defendants undertakings in
the event that the time-table for the consultation process cannot be
agreed;
3. Liberty
to apply as a matter of urgency as to the implementation of the order;
4. There
shall be no order as to cost of the application relating to the
decision of 27 February 2001;
5.
A transcript of the
judgement be expediteda
[This
matter occupied the time of the Court from 1147 to 1300 and from 1400
to 1641 on the 11th September 2001 from 1032-1310 and from
1415 to 1500 on the 12th September 2001; 1058 – 11.50.
1246 – 1255 and on 14th September]
By the Court
|
