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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
back-to-top-scroll