header-logo header-logo

26 February 2009 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Housing
printer mail-detail

Ripping yarn

Family

Destroy NLJ 157, 7296, p 1571 under “One Family; Two Homes”. The House of Lords has messed things up by reversing the Court of Appeal in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7, [2009] All ER (D) 36 (Feb). The relevant housing authority should not intervene on a shared residence application to argue against an order although it would be helpful for the court to know what accommodation, if any, the authority was likely to provide. Only in exceptional circumstances would it be reasonable to expect a child who had a home with one parent to be provided with a home with another under the Housing Act 1996, Pt VII so that he could reside with the other parent as well.

Issue: 7358 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Housing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

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