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

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
Material obtained through US discovery applications may have a much longer legal life than many litigants realise
English courts are developing a distinctly practical approach to sanctions disputes arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
back-to-top-scroll