Authored By: Anisah Uddin
University Of Roehampton
Facts of the Case
In this case, Ms Yemshaw applied for housing assistance from the Hounslow London Borough Council (LBC) under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, 1 because she was homeless due to domestic violence. 2 The domestic violence she suffered from her husband was emotional and psychological abuse, such as threatening behaviour, verbal assaults and controlling behaviour. 3 However, she was never physically abused. 4
Because of this lack of physical abuse, the Council rejected her application, because the court argued the term ‘violence’ in the Housing Act should only refer to physical violence. 5 They contended that emotional and psychological abuse did not fall within the scope of “violence” under the statute. 6
Legal Issues
In this case the legal issue was whether the term ‘violence’ in the Housing Act 1996 should be narrowed down to only physical harm or whether it should be broader, encompassing emotional or psychological abuse in the definition of domestic violence. 7
This legal question is incredibly important, particularly in family law, about the scope of protection for victims of domestic abuse, specifically those suffering from non-physical forms of violence and whether this protection should extend to housing assistance under this law. 8
Court’s Ruling
When this case was initially heard in court, the local authority (Hounslow LBC) decision denied Ms Yemshaw’s claim, stating her allegation of domestic violence. 9 This was because her allegations of emotional and psychological abuse did not meet the statutory definition of ‘violence’ in the court’s interpretations. 10
Ms Yemshaw appealed this decision to the County Court, because she believed the ruling was unfair against victims of domestic violence. 11 This appeal was dismissed. 12 The ratio decidendi was that the court agreed that the legal definition of violence did not extend beyond physical abuse. 13
After this County Court decision, Ms Yemshaw appealed to the Court of Appeal. 14 In a majority judgement, the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, agreeing with earlier court decisions that ’violence’ was specific to physical harm or threat of such harm only. 15 This decision reinforced the precedent that psychological abuse is not included into the Housing Act 1966. 16
This case was then appealed to the UK Supreme Court. 17 This Court ruled ’violence’ under the Housing Act should include emotional and psychological abuse. 18 Baroness Hale emphasised that the law should modernise the definition of domestic violence and emotional abuse, and highlighted these types of abuse can be just as harmful as physical violence. 19 She concluded that failing to recognize non-physical violence would fail to protect those most vulnerable to coercive control and other forms of psychological harm. 20
Reasoning (Rationale)
The Supreme Court’s decision established a broader definition of ‘violence’ to fit the social realties of today. 21 The Court held this traditional, narrow view of domestic violence as solely physical violence did not reflect or advocate for victims of domestic violence, who’s psychological harm was often caused by controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, and emotional manipulation. 22 The Supreme Court altered the purpose of the Housing Act 1996 to provide protection to all individuals who are vulnerable and at risk of harm, including those who may suffer psychological or emotional trauma because of domestic abuse. 23
This clarification signified a key turning point in housing law, recognising that legal frameworks must evolve alongside changing societal understandings of abuse. 24 It highlighted the responsibility of the courts to ensure that legislative interpretation does not exclude vulnerable individuals from essential legal protections. 25 This decision also sent a message to public bodies—especially housing authorities—that non-physical harm must be taken seriously when assessing homelessness applications or eligibility for housing support.26
Baroness Hale delivered the leading opinion, stating that “violence” under section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 should be interpreted to include not only physical abuse but also emotional and psychological abuse, recognising that such forms of abuse can be equally damaging and should be acknowledged in law. 27 Lady Hale pointed out that the legislators had not anticipated the complexity of domestic violence in contemporary relationships and how emotional and psychological trauma can lead victims to suffer the same or worse than those who are physically abused. 28
Her analysis reflected a growing awareness within the judiciary of the hidden, enduring effects of non-physical abuse. 29 By grounding her interpretation in both legal principle and social reality, Hale provided a foundation for future courts to develop a more nuanced, compassionate understanding of harm in domestic contexts. 30 Her comments also prefigured broader statutory reforms that would later be introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, embedding this inclusive definition of abuse into law. 31
This resulted in a narrow reading of the term “violence” and defeats the purpose of the statute, which does not protect vulnerable individuals, including those who may not suffer physical injury but face significant harm from emotional or psychological abuse. 32
The Court’s reinterpretation directly challenged this limitation, ensuring that the law aligns with the lived experience of victims. 33 The judgment had an enduring impact not only on legal interpretation but also on policymaking and service provision, prompting institutions to reconsider how they identify and support survivors. 34 In doing so, the decision strengthened the principle that all forms of abuse—whether visible or invisible—deserve equal recognition and legal response. 35
Conclusion/Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed Ms Yemshaw’s appeal, overruling the previous court decisions. 36 The ruling stated that the term “violence” under the Housing Act 1996 should be interpreted more broadly to include various types of domestic abuse such as emotional, psychological, and controlling abuse. 37 As a result of this Supreme Court ruling, the local authority was required to reconsider Ms Yemshaw’s application for housing assistance, and after her application was reconsidered, Ms Yemshaw was deemed to have been homeless due to domestic violence. 38
Significance of the Case
This case is incredibly significant because it expanded the definition of domestic violence in UK housing law to not discriminate against emotional and psychological abuse, showing the courts should adopt a more modern understanding of domestic violence. 39 This decision also established that coercive control and non-physical forms of abuse can be equally harming to someone as physical violence would be, and therefore held these types of abuse should be legally recognized to protect and advocate for victims effectively. 40 By acknowledging that domestic abuse encompasses a spectrum of behaviours beyond physical harm, the court emphasized the importance of interpreting the law in a way that reflects the lived experiences of victims. 41
This judgement was the foundation for many domestic violence victims of emotional and psychological abuse to gain housing and rights; in the same way physical abuse victims are granted. 42 It marked a turning point in the legal treatment of domestic abuse by enabling victims to qualify for homelessness assistance even if they had not suffered physical violence.43
This ruling influenced the creation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. 44 This legislation introduced a definition of domestic violence as including emotional, psychological, and coercive control, reinforcing the protection of victims from all forms of abuse, and creates global awareness of these different types of abuse. 45 The Act builds on the principles established in this case, offering statutory recognition of patterns of controlling or coercive behaviour and promoting a more holistic approach to victim protection. 46 Therefore, theSupreme Court’s decision leading to a legal reinterpretation of domestic abuse in the UK, led this legislation to adopt broader legal reforms and codify the more inclusive definition of domestic violence. 47 This will advocate and support all victims of domestic violence to gain housing and support from local authorities such as the police, social services, councils and many more. 48
Lastly, this Supreme Court ruling provided guidance for housing associations and local authorities on how they should interpret and apply the housing law in cases involving domestic abuse, to ensure all victims are not excluded from housing and are provided the same level of protection due to the narrow interpretations of what abuse is. 49 It set a legal precedent ensuring that local authorities must take a more comprehensive and inclusive approach in their assessments, thereby closing the gap that previously left victims of non- physical abuse without support. 50
This case modernised approach to domestic abuse and what a domestic abuse victim is, has been a landmark decision in future cases dealing with domestic violence. 51 It has also been a landmark decision for courts assessing housing disputes and requirements for housing under the Housing Act 1966, particularly under Section 177. 52
For example, in Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2015 53, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether non-physical abuse from a neighbour, such as racial harassment and threats, could halt a person from continuing their residence in their accommodation under Section 177(1). 54 From the ratio decidendi from Yemshaw, the court decided that ‘violence’ does include conduct which causes emotional, psychological harm, even with the absence of physical violence or contact. 55
Underhill LJ, one of the leading judges in Hussain, emphasised that victims of non-domestic abuse should be provided the same protection as domestic abuse victims when the behaviour the victim suffered was psychological harming. 56 In paragraph 16 of this judgement, Underhill specifically stated that ‘other violence in s177(1) of the Housing Act 1966 covers not just physical violence but also other threatening or intimidating behaviour or abuse, if of such seriousness that it might give rise to psychological harm.’ 57
Thus, the Court of Appeal recognised that these types of behaviour, even without physical harm or abuse, can be incredibly damaging to one’s mental health and can cause damaging, psychological injury. 58 This judgement reaffirmed that non-physical forms of abuse, such as harassment or intimidation leading to psychological harm, could render it unreasonable for a person to continue occupying their accommodation, thereby meeting the criteria for homelessness under the Act. 59
Therefore, this case illustrates the legal precedent established in Yemshaw and the continuation of the principles set in this case, concerning legal protections for all abusive behaviours.60
Bibliography:
Table of Cases
Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] EWCA Civ 14 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3 Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2009] EWCA Civ 1543
Table of Legislation
Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1
Housing Act 1996, ss 175–177
Reference(S):
1 Housing Act 1996, s 175.
2 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, [1]–[6].
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 ibid.
6 ibid.
7 Housing Act 1996, s 175 –s 177 (1).
8 ibid.
9 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, [3].
10 ibid.
11 Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2009] EWCA Civ 1543.
12 ibid.
13 ibid.
14 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1543, [1].
15 ibid.
16 ibid.
17 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, [28].
18 ibid.
19 ibid.
20 ibid.
21 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, interpreting Housing Act 1996, s 177(1), [28].
22 ibid.
23 ibid.
24 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, Baroness Hale, [para 25].
25 ibid.
26 ibid.
27 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, Baroness Hale, [para 25].
28 ibid.
29 ibid.
30 ibid.
31 Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1.
32 ibid.
33 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, Baroness Hale, [para 25].
34 ibid.
35 Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1.
36 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3.
37 ibid.
38 ibid.
39 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, Baroness Hale at [13]- [17], Lord Kerr at [27]-[30], Lord Clarke at [35]-[40].
40 ibid.
41 ibid.
42 ibid.
43 ibid.
44 Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1.
45 ibid.
46 ibid.
47 ibid.
48 ibid.
49 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, interpreting Housing Act 1996, s 177(1), [28].
50 ibid.
51 Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3, Baroness Hale, [para 25].
52 ibid.
53 Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] EWCA Civ 14.
54 ibid.
55 ibid.
56 Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] EWCA Civ 14, [16].
57 Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] EWCA Civ 14, [16].
58 ibid.
59 ibid.
60 ibid.
