Bryan is an experienced litigator whose practice involves advocacy, advice and drafting, often in public law matters, across the full range of work undertaken by adult social services, children’s services and housing departments. He seeks to respond to the changing needs local authorities, and has been significantly involved in legal developments over the past decade and more in the areas of social housing and homelessness, asylum support, community care and more generally the provision of services to the vulnerable including to the aged, to those without capacity or with particular disabilities and/or to children. Within that broad context, much of his work over recent months has been:
- In the Court of Protection;
- In adult and children’s social care cases, commonly with individual claimants but also often in cases involving turf disputes between authorities, with health services or with central government, or on related jurisdictional issues;
- In advising on pressures on the budget;
- In housing and homelessness cases; and
- In advising in relation to inquests and inquiries
Bryan is consistently listed as a Leader of the Bar in the areas of social housing and local government. Common themes running through the directory entries are that he is noted as an able and effective advocate with sound tactical judgment, but also that he has a good client manner, has good teamwork skills and that clients enjoy working with him. Thus:
Bryan has appeared in over 80 reported cases. He often lectures at and chairs seminars on social services, community care and homelessness issues. He was editor in chief of Tolley's Claims to the Possession of Land and was an assistant editor on the Damages section of Halsbury's Laws (4th Edition Re - Issue).Bryan joined the chambers from Field Court Chambers in March 2007. Since then his cases have included the following which indicate the range of his practice:
- For Essex in R (KA) v Essex CC (Admin Court, 2013) on provision of accommodation to those unlawfully present in the UK and to their families. Court of Appeal hearing listed June 2013.
- For Islington in R (ET and others) v Islington LBC (Court of Appeal 2013, Admin Court 2012) on the required intensity of a Wednesbury review of a Children Act assessment of the risk posed by a child abuser to the children being assessed.
- For Haringey in AB and CD v Haringey LBC (Administrative Court 2013) on whether or when an obligation to commence a section 47 Children Act 1989 enquiry is triggered.
- For Solihull in Solihull MBC v Hickin (Supreme Court 2012) on whether there is an exhaustive succession regime in Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 which excludes the common law rule of survivorship to joint tenancies.
- For West Sussex in Davis and Davis v West Sussex CC (Admin Court 2012) on whether or when care home proprietors can or should bring proceedings in the Administrative Court rather than by way of ordinary Part 7 claim.
- For Newham in R (Siwak) v Newham LBC (Admin Court 2012) on whether Newham had failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty and or failed
lawfully to consult in relation to the funding of advice centres in the borough.
- For Islington in NM v Islington LBC (Admin Court 2012) on whether a duty to conduct a community care assessment of a prisoner arose before or after
his parole hearing.
- For the local authority in the Court of Protection in A Local Authority v FG AG and HG (2011, reported April 2012) (Hedley J) on capacity and the relevance of the availability of social worker help in decision making.
- For Manchester in the Court of Appeal in Manchester CC v G and E (2011) on costs orders in the Court of Protection. Also, on a similar issue, for the local authority in Re RC: SC v LBH (Senior Judge Lush, Court of Protection 2010)
- For the local authority in the Court of Protection in A Local Authority v TB and SA (2011) (Hedley J) on best interests, and whether an order could or should be made authorising either sterilisation or long term contraception.
- For the local authority in an Inquest, and advising thereafter, concerning the re4spective responsibilities of health and social services in providing for crisis support services (2009 and 2010)
- For Birmingham in Khazai v Birmingham CC (Administrative Court, 2010, Foskett J) on allegations of misfeasance in the context of performance of housing duties.
- For Liverpool in MC v Liverpool CC (Administrative Court, 2010, Langstaff J), the first new style age assessment dispute with cross examination of the Claimant and the social workers.
- For Sheffield in the Court of Appeal in Sheffield CC v Wall (2010) on succession undert the Housing Act, and on setting aside possession orders.
- For the Local Authority in LBB v JM and others (Court of Protection, 2010, Hedley J), a case requiring cross examination concerning an allegation sexual interference with a vulnerable adult.
- For Southwark in G v Southwark LBC in the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords on the responsibilities of housing and social service departments to 16 and 17 year olds and on the line between s17 and s20 Children Act provision.
- For Liverpool in Liverpool CC v London Borough of Hillingdon on disputes between LAs as to which of them is obliged to assess under the Children Act.
- For Croydon in the Lambeth and Croydon age assessment (ECHR Articles 6 and 8 and precedent fact) disputes (Administrative Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).
- For Croydon in the Croydon and Kent age assessment (proper approach to paediatric evidence) disputes.
- For Kensington & Chelsea in the AK v Central & North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Kensington & Chelsea RLBC on the existence of a duty of care in relation to the provision of aftercare under s117 MHA 1983.
- For Lewisham in B v Lewisham LBC regarding the lawfulness of Special Guardianship Allowance and its relation to fostering allowance.
- For the claimant in Nipyo v LB Croydon on what amounts to a reasonable opportunity for an intentionally homeless person to find accommodation of their own.
- For Lewisham in Pajaziti v Lewisham LBC on duties to asylum seekers whose main need is for health services.
- For Kensington & Chelsea in Harouki v RBKC on whether it was reasonable for a family to continue to occupy overcrowded accommodation even when it was a criminal offence to do so.
- For Islington in H and others v Wandsworth LBC and others on whether or when accommodation could be provided pursuant to s 17 rather than s 20 Children Act 1989.
- For the claimant in Blackburn-Smith v Lambeth LBC on the Human Rights obligations owed to unlawfully overstaying families.
- For the claimant in Abdi v Lambeth LBC: Can a housing officer decide whether interim accommodation should be provided pending a review of his own decision?
