Rogerson v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: 2005

The court considered both whether Mohamed v. Manek was still binding and whether the facts of the case were covered by the prior decision, having regard in particular to the emphasis on transience which emerges from the judgment of Nourse LJ. Heled: The court referred to a possible situation in which the authority permits the occupier to remain in the premises for a period which is no longer reasonably referable to the decision to accommodate him temporarily pending enquiries.
Elias J
[2005] HLR 10
England and Wales
Citing:
ConsideredMohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .

Cited by:
CitedDesnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.242936