Facts: Mr Hotak had learning and mental health difficulties and Southwark decided that he was not in priority need because he had his brother’s support. Mr Kanu had mental and physical health problems and Southwark decided that he was not in priority need because of support from his wife and son. Mr Johnson suffered from heroin addiction and a range of relatively low level physical and mental health problems and Solihull decided that he was not in priority need because he was not more vulnerable than the average homeless person.

Judgment: the Supreme Court (Neuberger, Hale, Clarke, Wilson and Hughes JJSC) held that the true question is whether the applicant was vulnerable compared with the average person, if made homeless, not compared with the average homeless person and that local authorities could take into account third party support, but only where it was available on a consistent and predictable basis.