Extract
Holmes-Moorhouse(FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) (2009)
HOUSE OF LORDSSESSION 2008-09[2009] UKHL 7 on appeal from:[2007]EWCA Civ 970 OPINIONSOF THE LORDS OF APPEALFOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSEHolmes-Moorhouse (FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents)Appellate CommitteeLord HoffmannLord Scott of FoscoteLord Walker of GestingthorpeBaroness Hale of RichmondLord Neuberger of AbbotsburyCounselOriginal Appellants:Andrew Arden QCMatthew Hutchings(Instructed by Legal Services, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames)Original Respondent:Jan Luba QCNicholas Nicol(Instructed by Scully & Sowerbutts )Hearing date :27 NOVEMBER 2008ONWEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2009HOUSE OF LORDSOPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENTIN THE CAUSEHolmes-Moorhouse (FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents)[2009] UKHL 7LORD HOFFMANNMy Lords,1. When parents separate, a court may make a shared residence order which stipulates that their children are to reside with both parents in their separate households. On 9 August 2005, the judge in the present case ordered the father to leave the family home in Richmond upon Thames by 20 September 2005 and provided that he and the mother were to have shared residence of three of their children. The order said that they should spend alternate weeks and half of their school holidays with each parent.2. The father had no other accommodation available to him and so on 18 August 2005 applied to the Housing Services of Richmond London Borough Council for assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, which imposes upon housing authorities duties in respect of accommodation for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The nature of the duty varies according to whether or not the applicant has priority need. If he does, the duty is to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation: section 193(2). If not, the duty is only to provide advice and assistance in any attempts he may make to obtain accommodation. The Council accepted that he was homeless but not that he had priority need. The father requested a review of this decision under section 202 but on 3 May 2006 the Council affirmed it.3. Section 189(1) lists the categories of people who have priority need, of which the relevant one is in paragraph (b): “a person with whom dependent chi...See the full content of this document