Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 51 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2017] UKSC 36
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes SCJJ

Representation Martin Westgate QC and Jamie Burton (instructed by Hansen Palomares) for the appellant.
  Christopher Baker and Annette Cafferkey (instructed by Legal Services, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) for the respondent.
  Clive Sheldon QC and Tom Cross (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Intervener.
Judgment Dates: 10 May 2017

Catchwords

Housing - Homeless person - Duty of housing authority to provide accommodation - Appellant rejecting offer of permanent accommodation made by respondent local authority - Appellant contending features of accommodation causing flash backs to period of imprisonment and torture in Iran - Reviewing officer rejecting appellants contention - County court and Court of Appeal dismissing appellant's appeal - Whether right to fair trial having place in context of housing allocation - Whether decision of housing officer being lawful - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6.

The Case

Housing Homeless person. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against a finding that the local authority's housing duty to her had been discharged, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. The court also confirmed the finding in the case of Ali v Birmingham City Council[) that art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had no application in the context of the .

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.