header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Housing

Sharif v Camden London Borough [2013] UKSC 10, [2013] All ER (D) 229 (Feb)

The word “accommodation” in the Housing Act 1996, in itself, was neutral. It was not, in its ordinary sense, to be equated with “unit of accommodation”. It was no abuse of language to speak of a family being “accommodated” in two adjoining flats. The limitation, if any, had to be found in the words “available for occupation...together with” the other members of his family. The statutory test would be satisfied by a single unit of accommodation in which a family could live together. However, it might also be satisfied by two units of accommodation, if they were so located that they enabled the family to live “together” in practical terms. Accommodation, whether in one unit or two, would not be “suitable” unless it enabled the fundamental objective of the Act, which was to ensure that families could “live together”, to be achieved.

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

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott bolsters housebuilder expertise in Birmingham

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

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