*/
Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had applied to the respondent local authority for homeless assistance under the Housing Act 1996. The authority accepted that he met all of the criteria other than a connection with the local area, as he had more of a connection with Eastbourne and referred the application accordingly. Eastbourne accepted that it had a housing duty towards him, but the appellant never applied to that authority for assistance. The respondent authority rejected the appellant's applications as the appellant was not homeless as accommodation was available to him in Eastbourne if he applied for it. The appellant's appeals were refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the fact that an applicant might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy s 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision maker, per se, to find that an applicant was not homeless and that, accordingly, the qualifications for homelessness contained in s 175(1) were not satisfied. The court found that the judge below had erred but, remaking the decision for itself, held that the appellant had been homeless but that, in the circumstances, the authority had no longer owed any housing duty to him.
Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had applied to the respondent local authority for homeless assistance under the Housing Act 1996. The authority accepted that he met all of the criteria other than a connection with the local area, as he had more of a connection with Eastbourne and referred the application accordingly. Eastbourne accepted that it had a housing duty towards him, but the appellant never applied to that authority for assistance. The respondent authority rejected the appellant's applications as the appellant was not homeless as accommodation was available to him in Eastbourne if he applied for it. The appellant's appeals were refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the fact that an applicant might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy s 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision maker, per se, to find that an applicant was not homeless and that, accordingly, the qualifications for homelessness contained in s 175(1) were not satisfied. The court found that the judge below had erred but, remaking the decision for itself, held that the appellant had been homeless but that, in the circumstances, the authority had no longer owed any housing duty to him.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
