Domestic Violence No Longer Limited to Physical Abuse

In the case of Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council the Supreme Court's decision brings housing and homelessness law into line with family law. Family law defines domestic violence as ‘physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm’.

The instant case involved a woman with two young children. She sought help from the local housing authority by saying that her husband regularly shouted at her in front of the children, and she was scared that if she confronted him he might hit her. She also stated he denied her money. The officers at the local authority decided she was not homeless as her husband had never actually hit her or threatened to hit her. On a review the local authority panel upheld the initial decision in saying that the probability of domestic violence was low, and concluded it was reasonable for her to continue living in the matrimonial home.

Under the Housing Act 1996, s 177(1), victims of domestic violence are automatically treated as homeless and must be re-housed by the local council as a priority. Giving the lead Judgment, Lady Hale stated that there had been a large shift in the understanding of domestic violence since the Housing Act 1996 came into force.

She went on to say that the Court’s decision ensures victims do not have to stay in homes where they "are at risk of harm" and they have "a real choice between remaining in [their] home and seeking protection from the criminal or civil law and leaving to begin a new life elsewhere". The Court decided that the question for the local authority is essentially one regarding the future, i.e. the probability of the acts continuing in the future. Hounslow council was therefore ordered by the Supreme Court to revisit its decision and it has confirmed it will do so.

In essence the case states that, where before the withholding of money or food might not have been thought of as domestic violence, it might be from now on as a result of the psychological damage it causes.




Elizabeth Bettes

Published on 15/02/2011