Court of Appeal

Published May 20, 2008

Moran v Manchester City Council

Richards v Ipswich Borough Council

Two women, who had been made homeless unintentionally when they fled to women’s reguges from domestic violence, became homeless intentionally when they were evicted from the refuges as a result of their own misconduct.

The Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Wilson) so held in a reserved judgment on April 17, 2008, when (i) allowing Manchester City Council’s appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Rigby in Manchester County Court, on May 16, 2007, that it should reconsider its decision that Sharon Moran was homeless intentionally; and (ii) dismissing Rosemary Richards’ appeal from the decision of Judge Holt in Ipswich County Court, on April 2, 2007, that Ipswich Borough Council no longer owed her a housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 because she had become intentionally homeless.

LORD JUSTICE WILSON said that he rejected the submission made on behalf of both women that a women’s refuge could not be described as accommodation for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996; R v Ealing London Borough Council, Ex parte Sidhu (The Times January 26, 1982; (1982) 80 LGR 534) to the contrary effect was wrong.

His Lordship also rejected the submission made on behalf of the two women that it could not be reasonable, for the purposes of the 1986 Act, for a woman to continue to occupy a refuge.

Times Recommends

• Clifford Chance sets out to improve its public image
• Bennett starts 16-year sentence for Refco fraud
• FSA challenged over insider trading case