Information for "North Yorkshire County Council v MAG (2016) EWCOP 5"

Basic information

Display title	North Yorkshire County Council v MAG [2016] EWCOP 5
Default sort key	North Yorkshire County Council v MAG (2016) EWCOP 5
Page length (in bytes)	1,380
Page ID	8487
Page content language	en - English
Page content model	wikitext
Indexing by robots	Allowed
Number of redirects to this page	1
Counted as a content page	Yes

Edit	Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
Move	Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)

Page creator	Jonathan (talk \| contribs)
Date of page creation	19:29, 29 August 2016
Latest editor	Jonathan (talk \| contribs)
Date of latest edit	20:19, 15 March 2025
Total number of edits	4
Total number of distinct authors	1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)	2
Recent number of distinct authors	1

Hidden categories (3)	This page is a member of 3 hidden categories: Category:Judgment available on Bailii Category:Judicial history template problem Category:Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Transcluded templates (12)	Templates used on this page: Template:Add drilldown link date (view source) Template:Add drilldown links (view source) Template:Add drilldown links ul (view source) Template:Case (view source) Template:Case subject note (view source) Template:Database header (view source) Template:Extension DPL (view source) Template:External link (view source) Template:Judicial history (view source) Template:Linkless exists (view source) Template:Page creation date (view source) Template:What links here (view source)

Description	Content
Article description: (`description`) This attribute controls the content of the `description` and `og:description` elements.	Appeal against refusal of DOL authorisation. "I have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the applications for permission should be granted and the appeals allowed. ... This appears to be a case in which DJ Glentworth uncharacteristically appears to have allowed her understandable concern about MAG's living circumstances, and her palpable frustration at what she saw as NYCC's tardiness in resolving his accommodation issues, to distract her from following a clear path to outcome. The result is one which I consider is unsupportable, and wrong. Picking six key themes from the arguments, I divide my discussion of the judgment into the following sub-headings: (i) Did the judge ask herself the correct question(s)? (ii) The effect of Re MN on these facts; (iii) Has there has been a breach of Article 5? (iv) Taking a decision which MAG could not take for himself; (v) No alternative option; impermissible pressure; (vi) The factual findings."

Information from Extension:WikiSEO