header-logo header-logo

28 January 2010 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

A fine distinction

When you “notify” do you also “inform”? asks Nicholas Dobson

Why would people spend good money in getting lawyers to argue for them over the meaning of words? Are they all practising pedants?

Not at all. For if “equity does nothing in vain” neither will most litigants. There will usually be some fundamental and serious issue riding on disputed interpretations of words. And so there was in the Court of Appeal last October where the legal meaning of the words “inform” and “notify” came up for scrutiny in the context of homelessness law (see Ali v. Birmingham City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1279).

This is in the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996), pt 7. In particular, s 193 imposes a duty on local housing authorities to secure that accommodation is available for a homeless applicant where the authority is satisfied that the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, has a priority need and is not satisfied that the applicant became homeless intentionally. However, under s 193(5) an authority ceases to be subject to this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll