username

password

Coram Chambersimage of 4 Paper Buildings logo1 Garden CourtFamily Law Week Email SubscriptionGarden CourtAlpha Biolabssite by Zehuti

Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal claim under s 11(2) of Children Act 2004

Section does not introduce fresh criteria for determining intentional homelessness

The Supreme Court has refused an application by Mrs Huzrat for permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold a finding that she had become homeless intentionally. The appeal from the judgment in Huzrat v Hounslow LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1865 had been intended to focus on the importance of the interests of the children under Children Act 2004 section 11.

Mrs Huzrat had claimed in the Court of Appeal that in reaching its decision Hounslow had failed to act in conformity with its duty under section 11 (2) of the Children Act 2004.  That provision states that in considering the issue as to whether her homelessness was intentional or not it was required to make arrangements for ensuring (a) that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and (b) that any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of its functions are provided having regard to that need.

Dismissing the appeal in the Court of Appeal, Moses LJ, giving the lead judgment, said that section 11 of the Children Act 'cannot and does not purport to introduce fresh and unspecified criteria for determining whether someone is intentionally homeless'.

For the Court of Appeal judgment, please click here.

30/4/15