Regina v London Borough of Ealing Ex parte Sidhu; 2 Jan 1982

References: (1982) 2 HLR 48
Coram: Hodgson J
The applicant, in flight from domestic violence, had gone with her two young children, to stay in a women’s refuge. The local authority argued that she was not homeless because she had accommodation available to her in the refuge.
Held: The application for judicial review succeeded. The court approved the conclusion of a county court judge in another case that ‘women living in refuges were still homeless’ under the terms of the 1977 Act. Hodgson J did not regard a crisis refuge as accommodation within the meaning of the 1977 Act. It was essential that women who had gone to refuges were still seen as homeless. Otherwise the refuges would have to give them 28 days notice when they came in so that they would be under threat of homelessness (under s 1(3) of the 1977 Act).
Statutes: Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
This case cites:

  • Cited – Din (Taj) -v- Wandsworth London Borough Council HL ([1983] 1 AC 657, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 14, [1981] 3 WLR 918, [1982] 1 All ER 1022, (1981-82) 1 HLR 73, [1981] 3 All ER 881)
    The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Manchester City Council -v- Moran and Another; Richards -v- Ipswich Borough Council CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 378, Times 20-May-08, [2008] 1 WLR 2387)
    The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it would have . .
  • Cited – Birmingham City Council -v- Ali and Others; Moran -v- Manchester City Council HL (Bailii, [2009] UKHL 36, Times, [2009] NPC 88, [2009] 1 WLR 1506, [2009] PTSR 1270, [2009] 4 All ER 161, [2009] BLGR 749)
    The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .