header-logo header-logo

24 April 2015
Issue: 7649 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Housing

Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22, [2015] All ER (D) 35 (Apr)

The appellant became homeless after having become unable to afford the rent on her property in Westminster. The respondent local authority offered the appellant temporary accommodation in Bletchley, which the appellant refused. Consequently, the respondent ceased to provide accommodation for the appellant. The county court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the authority had not breached its obligations under s 208 of the Housing Act 1996 and the decision had not been unlawful. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that the authority could not show that its offer of the property in Bletchley had been sufficient to discharge its legal obligations under the Act.

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft strengthens Scottish real estate capabilitywith partner appointment

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll