R (on the application of JM) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and another; R (on the application of Hertfordshire County Council) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 562 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 218 (Mar)
The court considered the meaning of “resident” (in s 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983), “ordinarily resident” (in s 24 of the National Assistance Act 1948) and “normally resident” (referred to in the Housing Act 1996). It also considered whether the deeming provision in s 24(5) of the 1948 Act could make a difference to a conclusion based on the ordinary meaning of the words in s 117.
It held that there was no perceptible difference between the phrases “resident”, “ordinarily resident” and “normally resident”—all three connoted settled presence in a particular place other than under compulsion. Further the deeming provision in s 24(5) of the 1948 Act could make no difference to a conclusion based on the ordinary meaning of the words in s 117—what was deemed to occur for the purpose of the 1948 Act could not be transposed into the 1983
