header-logo header-logo

Where to next?

02 August 2018 / Brooke Lyne
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Housing , Mental health
printer mail-detail
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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll