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
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
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