R v Brent LBC HBRB ex p Khadim [2001]

A tenant applied for housing benefit, but it was denied on the grounds that he resided with the person to whom he was liable to make payments. He lived in the same house as his landlord, and as the landlord was his brother he was regarded a close relative for the purposes of the legislation current at that time (the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, Reg.7(1)).
The tenant applied to the Housing Benefit Review Board, contending that his relationship with his brother had deteriorated down and they no longer shared any facilities. He had a fridge and a microwave in his room, and the sole use of a bathroom in which he also washed his dishes. However, the Board had accepted evidence produced by the council, that they had derived from a home visit, that he also used the kitchen and the bathroom.
The judge held that the issue of residence was to be determined solely by reference to another of the regulations (Reg.3(4)), which provided that a person resided with another only if the two of them shared "accommodation except a bathroom, a lavatory or a communal area". He also said that he was bound by an earlier decision.

On appeal:
HELD: The tenant argued that although a finding that a person resided with another meant that the requirements of Reg.3(4) had been met, Reg.3(4) did not itself determine whether a person resided with another. He also contended that the previous judgment followed by the judge at first instance should not have been relied on as the main proposition had been accepted without having been argued.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, as an earlier proposition that had not been argued but had just been assumed to be true did not bind subsequent court. The Court also said that the question of residence should not be determined solely by reference to Reg 3(4) and the words ‘reside with’ should be given their natural and obvious meaning.


Citation: R v Brent LBC HBRB ex p Khadim [2001] Q.B. 955