header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2018 / Brooke Lyne
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Housing , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Where to next?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7804_lyne

​The law in relation to those lacking capacity has undergone radical change: is the Begum case still fit for purpose? Brooke Lyne investigates

  • Since the decision in the Begum case in 1993, there has been a huge shift in the way the law treats those lacking mental capacity.
  • In WB v W District Council the Court of Appeal was forced to consider whether the Begum principles were still relevant.

Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996), local authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for those who are eligible, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. There are a number of categories of ‘priority need’ but for current purposes a person who is ‘vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason’ has a priority need.

The Begum case

The starting point when considering mental capacity in homelessness law is the case of Begum (reported as R v Oldham Metropolitan Council ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509, (1993) 25 HLR 319,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll