header-logo header-logo

12 February 2009 / Peter Hungerford-welch
Issue: 7356 / Categories:
printer mail-detail

Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7

Peter Hungerford-Welch, associate dean, The City Law School, City University London. W www.city.ac.uk/law

When a court in family proceedings makes a shared residence order and one parent is homeless, a housing authority was not obliged, on account of the order, to regard that parent as a person in priority need of accommodation on the ground that dependent children might reasonably expected to reside with him. Moreover, a family court should not use a residence order as a means of putting pressure upon a local housing authority to allocate its resources in a particular way.

Issue: 7356 / Categories:
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll