Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte Hassan

The Times Law Reports Family Court Reports Cited authorities 8 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date18 January 1995
Date18 January 1995
CourtQueen's Bench Division

Queen's Bench Division

Before Mr Roger Toulson, QC

Regina
and
Islington London Borough Council, Ex parte Hassan

Housing - homelessness - cause cannot postdate onset

Cause cannot postdate effect

Once an applicant was deemed homeless under section 58 of the Housing Act 1985 his homelessness could not be said to have been caused by an act or omission postdating its onset.

Mr Roger Toulson, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, so stated when granting an application for judicial review by Mr Bashir Hassan of a decision on May 20, 1994 of the London Borough of Islington that he was intentionally homeless.

Miss Heather Williams for Mr Bashir; Miss Megan Thomas for the council.

HIS LORDSHIP said that Mr Hassan became homeless on November 23, 1993 when an order for possession was obtained. He did not leave until February 9, 1994 on execution of a warrant of possession. His continued occupation had been precarious and possibly unlawful but it was certainly not settled.

His Lordship noted that in determining homelessness the courts had concentrated on what caused an applicant to lose his last settled accommodation.

In the present case the decision letter had stated that he became homeless intentionally and mentioned in support acts done after he became homeless, in particular his refusal to allow housing benefit to be paid to the landlord, to establish the intentionality. Mr Hassan contended that those acts could not have caused him to become homeless and lose settled accommodation because he was already homeless.

His Lordship rejected the council's contention that whereas section 58 required the court to address the applicant's status, asking whether he had any right to occupy the property, section 60 focused on the moment he performed the physical act of moving out of occupation.

His Lordship also rejected the submission in reliance on R v Newham London Borough Council, Ex parte Campbell ((1993) 26 HLR 183) that, as a deliberate act or omission...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT