Sharp v London Borough of Brent

The council lawfully discharged its duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 by offering suitable accommodation at 29 Joules House; the claimant had no right to remain at 63 Pharamond, and Article 8 ECHR did not require the council to offer that property.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Natalie Sharp; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Brent
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 April 2003
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; order below set aside.
Legal Topics: Homelessness, Allocation of Housing, Statutory Succession, Suitability of Accommodation, Article 8 ECHR

Housing Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Homelessness Allocation of Housing Statutory Succession Suitability of Accommodation Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Natalie Sharp

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Brent

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the accommodation offered by the council was suitable under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996
2 Whether the council's decision was affected by irrelevant considerations, including the claimant's alleged dishonesty
3 Whether Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged and justified interference

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order below set aside.

Orders

The costs of the appeal be paid by the respondent under section 11(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, respondent's contribution assessed as nil.
The costs below after 26 July 2002 be paid by the respondent.