Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting 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