‘In Guiste v Lambeth LBC (2019) EWCA Civ 1758, the Court of Appeal returned again to the meaning of Lord Neuberger’s eliptical phrase in Hotak v Southwark LBC that, for the purposes of the homelessness provisions in the Housing Act 1996, vulnerability meant being significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable as a result of being made homeless. The decision in Guiste (I’m told that it is pronounced “Geest” as opposed to “Gwist”) in some respects is one on its facts, but the Court of Appeal make a number of observations of significance in these cases and leave one point open (albeit give their penniworth on it). As an academic interested in the field, I wonder at the amount of effort,time, and money spent in arguing the toss about vulnerability, and whether there might be better uses of that effort/time/cash, but there we go; that’s why we have our tower.’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
