Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

HOUSING: R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 917

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : r-m-v-hammersmith-and-fulham-london-borough-council-2006-ewca-civ-917
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 30, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89145

(Court of Appeal; Pill, Wall and Lloyd LJJ; 5 July 2006) [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)

The child approached the local authority when she was 17 years old, seeking housing. The authority provided her with temporary accommodation under the Housing Act 1996, on the basis that she was potentially a priority need homeless case. The child challenged that decision, claiming that the authority ought to have identified her as a child in need, and provided her with housing and other services under the Children Act 1989. Although the child had had a very disturbed childhood, including exclusion from school and offences of robbery and threats to kill, the child had never been in council care.

In the case of a child who had not been in care, or looked after by the authority, and who was not disabled or unwell, it was not incumbent on a housing officer to treat her as a child in need. The child had been in priority need of housing, which had been supplied. The alternative interpretation would result in the absurdity of an obligation on the housing department to reject such a claim and to refer the child to social services. The authority had a duty thereafter to investigate the child's circumstances.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from