Overview: Local Government Law

Abstract

The Supreme Court decided six cases concerning local government issues during 2012–2013. In Sharif v London Borough of Camden,1 the Supreme Court considered whether the local council's obligation to provide accommodation to a homeless person2 and his/her family under section 176 of the Housing Act 1996, required the family to be housed in a single unit of accommodation. The Supreme Court held that the ordinary meaning of section 176 permits a local council to house a family in two units of accommodation, provided that the location of these units allows the family to `live together' in a practical sense. Lord Carnwath, writing for the majority, emphasised that this decision related to a narrow point of law and did not dilute the authorities' duty to ensure that homeless persons and their families are accommodated together in a true sense. Lord Kerr disagreed with the majority, taking the view that the legislation contemplates that a family must be housed in a single unit of accommodation in order to avoid undermining the Housing Act's objective of keeping families together. Local authorities' obligations to provide housing to indigent persons was also at issue in SL v Westminster City Council.3 In this case, the appellant claimed that due to depression and a previous attempted suicide, he required monitoring. Therefore, he qualified as being in need of `care and attention' under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, triggering the local council's obligation to provide accommodation. The Supreme Court distinguished this case on the facts from R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service.4 The SupremeCourt referredwith approval to LadyHale's interpretation of section 21(1)(a) in R (M) v Slough Borough Council,5 where it was stated that this provision was not so broad as to mean `doing something' which the person being cared for cannot expect to do for himself. The Supreme Court dismissed the