Significantly more vulnerable – how much, or what kind?

Panayiotou v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2017) EWCA Civ 1624 This is an important court of appeal decision on the meaning of ‘significantly’ in Lord Neuberger’s definition of vulnerability under s.189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996 in Hotak v Southwark LBC (2015) UKSC 30, [2016] AC 811 (our report). Lord Neuberger, at 53, said: “Accordingly, I consider that the approach […]

Vulnerability, ‘significantly’ and equality duties

S Butt v London Borough of Hackney. County Court at Central London. 22 February 2016 (PDF of judgment) This was another in a number of county court judgments on section 204 Housing Act 1996 appeals which turned on the question of vulnerability after the Supreme Court decision in Hotak. (Others are here and here). In […]

A compendium of vulnerability cases

Following on from our post on Mohammed v Southwark LBC, here are notes on a further three appeals to the County Court under section 204 Housing Act 1996, all related to decisions on priority need (or lack of it) through vulnerability. Ward v LB Haringey. County Court at Central London. 22 Feb 2016 (not available […]

Vulnerability – a fresh start

Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent) Kanu (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent) Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent) Crisis & Shelter, EHRC, SS for CLG interveners [2015] UKSC 30 The thing about the Supreme Court is that all those years of accrued, encrusted High Court and Court of Appeal […]

Errors, damn errors, and statistics: Ajilore v Hackney LBC

With the Supreme Court set to look at priority need this December, Ajilore v Hackney [2014] EWCA Civ 1273 may prove to be a brief footnote in the evolution of the bloated Pereira test. But, at least for the next four weeks, it tells us something about the construction of the ‘ordinary homeless person’ against which, post […]

You win some, you lose some

Oxford City Council v Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609 In which the Court of Appeal had to consider whether the homeless applicant had made himself intentionally homeless and whether he was in priority need. Mr Bull separated from his wife in June 2009 and left the home, where she was a secure tenant of the […]