Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] UKSC 3
The Supreme Court expands the definition of domestic violence.
Introduction
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of domestic violence to include non-physical behaviour, such as psychological, emotional and financial abuse. This case has significantly shaped the perception of domestic violence and continues to inform the Family Division’s Practice Directions.
Background to the Case
The Appellant was a mother who left the family home, taking her two young children with her. The home was rented in her husband’s sole name. She did not want to return and sought help from the local housing authority, stating that she suspected her husband was seeing another woman, and she was scared that if she confronted him, he would hit her. She also mentioned that her husband had shouted in front of the children.
Under the Housing Act 1996, a local authority has a duty to provide housing if it not reasonable to expect a person to stay in their home. This includes where it may lead to “domestic violence or other violence.”
However, the Court of Appeal in Danesh v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1404; [2007] HLR 14 held that violence must be physical; for example, it did not include threats which made someone fearful of physical violence.
Because her husband had never actually hit her (or even threatened to do so), the local authority found that domestic violence was unlikely, and therefore she could not be homeless, as it was reasonable for her to return to the family home.
The Appellant challenged this on the basis that violence did not have to be physical. The Supreme Court agreed.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Departing from Court of Appeal’s decision in Danesh, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of violence to include non-physical behaviour, such as psychological, emotional and financial abuse.
This was because the word violence has several meanings. Lady Hale, who gave the leading judgement, remarked that in addition to physical violence, it can refer to other things, such as passion or fury. She also noted that the definition of domestic violence had broadened in recent years, through conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The House of Commons and the Law Commission had both broadened their definition so that it was not purely physical, recognising that violence takes many forms.
Regarding the Housing Act 1996, Lady Hale also noted that victims of domestic violence deserved a genuine choice between whether to stay or remain in the family home. Parliament, she believed, would have wanted victims to be able to access safety, even if the violence was not physical. Quoting a much older case, she concluded, “A person could be considered homeless if it was “impossible or intolerable…for the other partner, or for the children, to remain at home.”
Why Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC Matters
This decision demonstrates that the Supreme Court can expand the definition of violence to reflect changing social norms and recognise the importance of protecting all victims, even those who have not experienced physical abuse.
Practical Implications for Clients
– Violence and abuse can take many forms, and are not limited to physical violence
– You should not feel obligated to remain in the family home if it feels unsafe, even if you have not been hit or physically hurt
– The local authority may be able to provide assistance, including arranging new housing
Key Points for Family Lawyers
– Pay attention to a client’s experiences
– Be aware that violence and abuse can take many forms, and is not limited to physical violence
– Refer to the Family Division’s Practice Directions for up-to-date definitions of domestic violence
– Ensure that clients are aware of transitional housing and other resources which may be available to them, even if no physical violence has occurred
– Be aware that you may need to argue beyond an accepted definition, to protect clients who fall outside these criteria but are still vulnerable
Conclusion
The Supreme Court found that violence is not limited to physical violence, overturning a previous decision from the Court of Appeal to expand the definition to include psychological, emotional and financial abuse. This understanding continues to shape thinking about domestic violence today and ensure that victims are not forced to live with the perpetrators, even if no physical violence has taken place yet.
By: Tiffany Carpenter
31/10/2025