header-logo header-logo

29 November 2023
Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Housing
printer mail-detail

Landmark housing case gives councils more flexibility

Local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation within a reasonable period of time rather than immediately, the Supreme Court has held in a unanimous landmark judgment

R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45 concerned the extent of a local authority’s duty of care when seeking to house homeless individuals, given current budget constraints and lack of available housing.

Croydon had placed a disabled and homeless individual with three children into a wheelchair-adapted house, where the only bathroom was on a separate floor to the individual’s bedroom. It had been unable to find a more suitable property. The case centred on whether the court could make a mandatory order for Croydon to secure suitable accommodation in a fixed time period when it had taken all reasonable steps.

The court dismissed Croydon council’s appeal but ruled in principle that councils can’t be compelled by a mandatory order to do the impossible.

Victoria Searle, associate at Browne Jacobson, who advised Croydon council, said: ‘This judgment will bring sighs of relief from many local authorities.

‘The Supreme Court has recognised that the pressures faced by local authorities (and the difficulties that they face in balancing the increasing demands on their housing services with serious budgetary pressures) are significant factors in the court’s exercise of its remedial relief. While local authorities will, rightly, be required to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to perform their duty, the courts should not grant relief in cases where this would cause unfairness to others who are dependent upon that authority for housing or cause significant disruption to an authority’s management of its resources to meet all the functions imposed on it by Parliament.’

Giving the main judgment, Lord Sales clarified that the main housing duty is immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified.

However, where a court is satisfied all reasonable steps have been taken, it should not grant a mandatory order requiring the impossible. The court must also have regard to the risk of creating unfairness, by making an order which could allow a claimant to leapfrog others in greater housing need.

Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Housing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll