Mary Hughes
Practice
Dr Mary Hughes came to the Bar after a career in Education and Research, where she published extensively in women's issues. Mary has a freestanding administrative law practise primarily in education and community care. Her knowledge in this area is also of great benefit in public law cases which still remains largely misunderstood. The Third Edition of her book, "Education Law & Practice", written with John Ford and Karen May has recently been published by Jordans.
She is listed in Legal 500 as a leading Junior in Education.
Mary has a substantial practice in family & children law, particularly within the area of public law acting for parents and guardians. She also has experience of Hague Convention cases and forced marriages.
She is trained in direct access.
Notable Cases
> M (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1035
> Re B (Abduction: False Immigration Information) [2000] 2FLR 835
> Re G (A child)(Care Proceedings: Placement for Adoption) [2005] EWCA Civ 896;CA [2006] 1FLR 47
The judge had failed to make clear his process of reasoning by which he had decided the grandparents should be rejected as carers. He appeared not to give any weight to the right of a child to grow up in her own family. In such an important matter as the removal of a child from her family fairness demanded more clarity.
> Devjee v Patel [2006] EWCA Civ 1211 CA
In an appeal against a prison sentence imposed for breach of a non-molestation order under the FLA 1996 it was held that the CPRs enshrined the idea that the absence of the correct procedure did not make the hearing unfair.
> Re X: Barnet London Borough Council v Y and X [2006] 2 FLR 998
Mr J Munby sitting as a judge of the County Court once more looked in detail at practice and procedures within local authorities rather than points of law. He further felt that Barnet had too much regard to “government inspired targets and expressions of ministerial view”. He reiterated again that where a local authority was not mindful to amend its proposals to accord with the judicial and the guardian’s view as a last resort the guardian should consider taking proceedings for judicial review.
> Re K (Adoption: Permission to Advertise) [2007] EWHC 544 (Fam), [2007] ALL ER (D) 310 (Mar)
Mr J Macfarlane held that it was not open to a local authority to place an advert for a child being available for adoption until the adoption panel had decided that the child ought to be placed for adoption Where an application for permission is made prior to the final hearing and the court has not endorsed the care plan for adoption the court is unlikely to give permission to advertise.
> Learning Trust v (1) MP and (2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal [2007] EWHC 1634 (Admin)
It was held that the SENDIST had made several errors of law, its decision that the child should go to a residential school was to be remitted to a different Tribunal
> P v Hackney LBC [2007] EWHC 1365 (Admin)
It was held that the duty in the Community Care, Services for Carers and Children’s Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2003 to make direct payments implicitly required the consent of the parents. Even if it was known that direct payments would be opposed this did not prevent the council lawfully making an offer of direct payments. In deciding whether an LA had exceeded what would be a reasonable time to provide services the court might well have to take into account whether the objections raised by the parent to direct payments had been reasonable and if reasonable whether they had met a reasonable response.
> Re (L) v Waltham Forest LBC and Staffordshire County Council [2007] EWHC Admin
This case importantly finally settled the argument as to which authority is responsible for maintaining a child’s statement of special educational needs when he is a looked after child and lives away from his home borough. It is the duty of the home authority to so maintain the statement.
Memberships
KHRP BHRC FLBA Education Law Association
Specialisms
Children
Care Proceedings
Community Care Law
Education
