Law Report: Council has duty to house 'homeless' unborn child: Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex parte Dada Queen's Bench Division (Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC) 15 July 1994
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, quashed the council's rejection of the applicant's reasons for refusing accommodation.
In 1993 when the applicant was eight months' pregnant, she and her husband were informed by the council that they were to be offered a permanent home as homeless persons in priority need.
Before the baby was born, they were offered the tenancy of a one- bedroom property. Shortly after the baby was born, they rejected the offered accommodation on the grounds that it was a one- bedroom flat.
The council remained satisfied that its offer of accommodation, excluding from its consideration the imminent arrival of the baby, was reasonable.
Christian Moll (Irving Brown & Daughter) for the applicant; Steven Woolf (council solicitor) for the council.
SIR LOUIS BLOM-COOPER QC said that the question raised on the application for judicial review was whether the unborn child would be 'any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside' with the unintentionally homeless person for the purposes of section 75 of the Housing Act 1985.
The ordinary or natural meaning of the word 'person' excluded the unborn, but that might be departed from so as to include a child en ventre sa mere if that would secure to the child a benefit to which it would have been entitled if it had been actually born at the relevant date: Elliot v Joicey (1935) AC 209.
Where the question was a matter of statutory construction, the court's task was to determine whether Parliament intended to include the unborn child in the statutory language.
The homeless persons legislation was designed for the express purpose of bringing and keeping families together.
The Act supported the familial notion and referred to 'family associations'.
Given that legislative framework, the judicial inclination was to say that an unintentionally homeless husband and wife, or partners, awaiting the arrival of their baby were entitled to assume the accommodation being made available to them would accommodate the extra person, and that since section 75 was phrased in futuro - 'might reasonably be expected' - the person would linguistically include an expected baby.
On a construction of section 75, Parliament intended to depart from the strict rule that person must mean a living person, and would include a child en ventre sa mere.
All that was required of the local authority was an acknowledgment, when performing its duty to make available suitable accommodation, that it must take account of the impending addition to the homeless person's family.
Indeed, section 59(1)(a) defined a pregnant woman as having a priority need, and as a person who qualified, therefore, for housing accommodation.
The priority need arose from the very fact of a woman with child.
It would be odd if the homeless person had to occupy accommodation that would be rendered unsuitable almost immediately after taking up occupancy, and to await a transfer to suitable accommodation with all the delay and domestic disruption involved. The council's decision would be quashed.
Lammily: Barbie-like doll hits Kickstarter fundraising target in a day
Belle Knox: How the porn star student from Duke University became bigger than Justin Bieber
Top 10 most expensive cities in the world: Singapore named costliest place to live – but what about London?
Oscar Pistorius trial: Neighbour feared athlete would use gun that killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp to shoot himself
Channel 4 announces two-hour TV show to be broadcast 'Live from Space' later this month
Apple's Tim Cook: Business isn’t just about making profit
Thousands of young people forced to go without food after benefits wrongly stopped under 'draconian' new sanctions regime
Ukraine crisis: New navy chief 'defects' and surrenders Crimean HQ as Putin claims ultranationalists forced intervention
Britain's top vet sparks controversy with call for ban on slashing animals' throats in 'ritual' slaughters for halal and kosher meat products
Ukraine crisis: Russia dismisses '3am ultimatum' as 'total nonsense'
If you're horrified by a flame-roasted dog, you should be shocked at a hog roast
- 1 The future of sex: The first female condoms were derided, mistrusted and shunned - but will their modern counterparts catch on?
- 2 South African rhino finally put down after roaming Kruger park for days with horn hacked off and bullet in brain
- 3 Channel 4 announces two-hour TV show to be broadcast 'Live from Space' later this month
- 4 Man stabbed with Legend of Zelda Master Sword in serious condition
- 5 Study suggests that 'gaydars' are real - at least for women
£45 - 60k Per Annum: Charter Selection: Highly profitable leisure brand, marke...
£30000 - £50000 per annum + Highly Competitive Salary: Austen Lloyd: Residenti...
£40k to £50k pa OTE £80k: Charter Selection: My client, a leading profitable a...
£46,141 to £51,816: Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland: The PPS i...