header-logo header-logo

Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7

12 February 2009 / Peter Hungerford-welch
Issue: 7356 / Categories:
printer mail-detail

Peter Hungerford-Welch, associate dean, The City Law School, City University London. W www.city.ac.uk/law

When a court in family proceedings makes a shared residence order and one parent is homeless, a housing authority was not obliged, on account of the order, to regard that parent as a person in priority need of accommodation on the ground that dependent children might reasonably expected to reside with him. Moreover, a family court should not use a residence order as a means of putting pressure upon a local housing authority to allocate its resources in a particular way.

Issue: 7356 / Categories:
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll