UK courts advance women’s enjoyment of the rights to adequate housing and social protection
 

Yemshaw v. London Borough of Houslow, [2011] UKSC 3

The Queen on the application of Sheila Winder, Lisa Marie Dowen and Sarah Hampton v. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin)
 

Domestic violence – predominantly impacting women – frequently compels women to flee their homes and is a leading cause of homelessness. Others stay trapped in an abusive environment, the situation exacerbated by a lack of safe housing alternatives. ESCR-Net’s Women and ESCR (WESCR) Working Group has highlighted domestic violence as an impediment to the full realization of women’s human rights to land, housing and natural resources. In this issue of ESCR-Justice, we consider two cases from the United Kingdom which relate to the intersection between domestic violence and women’s enjoyment of the right to adequate housing and other human rights. Given the global scale of domestic violence (the WHO estimates that worldwide almost one third of all women have suffered intimate partner violence), these cases are of relevance across jurisdictions.

In Yemshaw v. London Borough of Houslow, the appellant was a married woman who left her family home with her two young children because she felt her husband treated her as less than human. He yelled at her, withheld finances, and made her afraid he would hit her or take the children away. She went to the local housing authority for help finding accommodation. As her husband had never hit her or threatened to physically harm her, the housing authority refused to assist her. The Supreme Court of the UK confirmed that the legal definition of the word ‘violence’ expands beyond physical contact, to encompass emotional and psychological as well as financial abuse, for the purposes of being classified as homeless and receiving access to social housing. The decision was based on relevant domestic and international standards, including General Recommendation 19 issued by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Going a step further, by addressing the ripple effect of housing instability on other economic, social and cultural rights, is the case: The Queen on the application of Sheila Winder, Lisa Marie Dowen and Sarah Hampton v. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The case was brought by three women who, despite financially qualifying for a reduction in council tax liability were denied this reduction based on a two-year local residency requirement included in a newly introduced tax plan. The three women had lived in Sandwell for most of their lives, but not portions of the two years prior to the tax plan. Each woman had experienced housing instability due to domestic abuse, mental illness, or having recently been widowed, and were on extremely limited incomes. The UK High Court of Justice struck down the residency requirement on multiple grounds including that the requirement was outside statutory authority, discriminated against women and non-UK citizens, and did not comply with a required consultation with affected parties. The Court held that the clear intent of parliament was to care for those in need, and if the residency requirement spread, it means people could choose to go on public benefits rather than move, and it could make it difficult for people to escape abuse or care for ill family members. Considering discrimination, the Court held that the residency requirement is indirectly discriminatory against women, because women are substantially more likely than men to suffer from domestic violence which might compel them to flee to a different local area, those fleeing often have very limited resources, and a person fleeing to Sandwell will not meet the residency requirement.  

The two cases illustrate the impact of domestic violence on the enjoyment of human rights in practice, in particular the rights to adequate housing and social protection. The decisions, in the adoption of a more comprehensive understanding of the experience of gender based-violence, and in considering indirect discrimination as a key part of a broader substantive equality analysis, represent an important contribution to evolving strategies to prevent violence against women and effectively securing women’s human rights. Further, understanding and confronting domestic violence – as well as other forms of violence globally – can contribute to addressing the trend of deepening inequality, one of the common global conditions outlined in the network’s Common Charter for Collective Struggle.

For their contributions, special thanks to Child Poverty Action Group and ESCR-Net members: Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy at Northeastern University (PHRGE); and JustFair UK.

Read more

Visit the caselaw database for more information on the case summary, the judgment and other related documents.