Catherine Rowlands has a practice which covers all aspects of public law, especially social housing, community care and welfare, property, and other civil litigation.
She is a robust and tenacious advocate with substantial experience at all levels from the Magistrates’ Court to the Supreme Court, where she has appeared in some of the most important cases in housing law. Her expertise in housing law and care cases is brought to bear in judicial review of decisions of local authorities, as well as Court of Protection and County Court cases wherever the question of a person’s home and home life is at stake.
Catherine specialises in representing local authorities and housing associations and as well as litigation, provides advice on policies and procedure. She never loses the common touch and combines a down-to-earth style that sets witnesses at their ease with a persuasive command of the law.
Catherine also sits as a Recorder in civil cases: she loves the different viewpoint she gains as a Judge and brings the experience gained from hearing a wide range of cases to bear in her own practice.
She has a Maitrise in French International law from the Université de Paris I (Pantheon-Sorbonne) and speaks fluent French.
Catherine is a member of the Society of Mediators (SOM), providing expert advice and mediation to local authorities and clients, with a focus on community care and housing disputes.
Expertise
- Housing
Catherine has extensive expertise in social housing and has appeared in some of the landmark cases in that area, in particular the seminal case on vulnerability, representing the Councils in Hotak v Southwark LBC, Kanu v Southwark LBC and Johnson v Solihull MBC. She represented the successful Council before the Supreme Court in Birmingham City Council v Ali (local housing authority’s duties to the “homeless at home”) and in Solihull MBC v Hickin, relating to the interrelation of the common law rules of survivorship and the statutory rules of succession, and appeared in Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association, on “tolerated trespassers”, and Birmingham CC v Walker, another succession claim. She has conducted many homelessness appeals before both County Court and Court of Appeal and advises councils on homelessness and allocations issues and policies. Catherine is particularly proficient in all types of possession claims, from anti-social behaviour to successors, acting predominantly for local authority and housing association landlords. She represented Sandwell MBC in the leading case of Hensley, establishing the principle that a tenant convicted of cannabis-farming has a heavy burden to discharge to stay in the property. In anti-social behaviour cases Catherine’s formidable cross-examination technique comes to the fore.
Cases: homelessness and allocations
- Kyle v Coventry CC [2023] EWCA Civ 1360 – when accommodation is reasonable to continue to occupy
- R (Laines Roman) v Southwark LBC [2022] EWHC 1232 (Admin) – intentionally worsening your position to obtain an advantage on the allocation scheme
- Bankole-Jones v Watford BC [2020] EWHC 3100 (Admin) – the Pandemic was not an “emergency” for the purposes of being vulnerable
- Hotak v Southwark LBC, Johnson v Solihull MBC [2015] UKSC 30: the Supreme Court’s consideration of vulnerability and priority need
- Kanu v Southwark LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 1085: the public sector equality duty and vulnerability
- Solihull MBC v Khan [2014] EWCA Civ 41: local authority not obliged to give reasons why accommodation is considered suitable
- R. (on the application of Bates) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2012] EWHC 4218 (Admin): injunction requiring interim accommodation refused where it was likely C would find her own
- Birmingham City Council v Ali et al [2009] UKHL 36: whether accommodation is suitable depends on the period of time for which the person is to be expected to remain there
- Fazia Ali et al v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1228: the homelessness procedure was compatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Omar v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 610: an offer letter did not have to use the exact words of section 193(7) to comply with that statutory provision
- Rowley v Rugby BC [2007] EWCA Civ 483 : the local authority was entitled to rely on an applicant’s statement without putting it to her for comments
- Shala v Birmingham CC [2007] EWCA Civ 624: use of medical evidence
- Williams v Birmingham CC [2007] EWCA Civ 691: suitability of accommodation is primarily a matter of appreciation for the local authority with its greater knowledge of the local conditions
- F v Birmingham City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1427: a woman who moved into accommodation she could not afford against the advice of her social worker was not acting in good faith when she closed her eyes to the relevant facts.
- Aw-Aden v Birmingham City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1834: does a person coming to this country to look for a job make himself intentionally homeless or is he acting in good faith and in ignorance of a relevant fact?
- Short v Birmingham City Council [2004] EWHC 2112 (QB): an appeal can only be brought out of time if there is a good reason for the delay
Cases: general housing
- Muema v Muema and Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 3864 (Fam): article 8 does not avail a joint tenant seeking to set aside Notice to Quit in matrimonial proceedings
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin [2012] UKSC 39: Where a joint tenant moved out leaving his wife and daughter in possession of the property, what happens to the tenancy on the death of the wife? Does the daughter succeed to the secure tenancy or does it remain with the joint tenant by way of survivorship? The Supreme Court upheld Solihull’s position that the common law prevailed.
- Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association [2008] UKHL 70: tolerated trespassers and revival of tenancies
- Sandwell MBC v Hensley [2007] EWCA Civ 1425: a tenant who has used his home as a cannabis farm must show good reasons why he should be allowed to remain in the property. a vague promise of “a new leaf” is not enough.
- Walker v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 22: where what would otherwise be a succession took place before the concept of succession was enacted, this does not prevent a second succession.
Housing – Anti-Social Behaviour
Dealing with anti-social behaviour is an important part of Catherine’s work. She is experienced in handling everything from injunction applications to more complicated possession claims, committals and appeals including matters such as:
- injunctions
- Closure orders
- Introductory, demoted & starter tenancies
- Possession claims
Housing – Disrepair & Housing Conditions
Catherine’s career was founded on disrepair claims. After nearly two decades of practice, she is well versed in section 11 claims, EPA prosecutions and liability for all kinds of dampness. Her cross-examination of experts in disrepair claims is enabled by a practical understanding of the use of a Protimeter.
- The Baroque vs the Rococo10 Jul 2024
- Can you be intentionally homeless from accommodation where you can’t smoke?20 Nov 2023
- What is a “deliberate” act?24 May 2022
- Terminating the section 188 duty: spell it out10 Jun 2020
- Vulnerability and the PSED: No arid debates. No straitjackets. No disciplinary stick08 Apr 2020
- Accommodation, care needs and the Localism Act30 Oct 2019
- Cornerstone Double Triple Whammy at Supreme Court Today01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Trio in Supreme Court Triple Whammy01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone note Supreme Court homelessness judgment01 Jan 2018
- Vulnerability and priority need: triple whammy in the Supreme Court01 Jan 2018
- M v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 59501 Jan 2018
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin [2010] EWCA Civ 86801 Jan 2018
- Birmingham City Council v Ali et al [2009] UKHL 3601 Jan 2018
- Supreme Court Judgment in Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Limited01 Jan 2018
- Sandwell MBC v Hensley [2007] EWCA Civ 142501 Jan 2018
- F v Birmingham City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 142701 Jan 2018
- Disabled, but not vulnerable01 Jan 2018
- Solihull Metropolitan Council v Shamina Khan: Court of Appeal, 28th January 201401 Jan 2018
- Johnson v Solihull01 Jan 2018
- Solihull Metropolitan Council v Elaine Hickin: Supreme Court 25th July 201201 Jan 2018
- Council Wins 3-2 in landmark Supreme Court Possession Appeal01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone in the Supreme Court01 Jan 2018
- Expert evidence in age assessment cases01 Jan 2018
- Housing Association excludes paedophile from its property01 Jan 2018
- Succession to a secure tenancy of a house under Pt 5 Housing Act 198501 Jan 2018
- Housing Newsletter | February 202426 Feb 2024
- Disrepair Update26 Feb 2024
- Can you be intentionally homeless from accommodation where you can’t smoke?20 Nov 2023
- Cornerstone Barristers retains top ranking in legal directories for Social Housing25 Oct 2023
- Cornerstone Housing Day presentation slides10 Oct 2023
- Time is an illusion19 Feb 2021
- Appeals out of time under section 204 of the Housing Act 199619 May 2020
- Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 201818 Feb 2019
- Exegetical Suggestions: An analysis of Rother District Council v Stephen Freeman-Roach03 Apr 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Newsletter – August 201601 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Newsletter: Bringing You the Latest in Legal Developments01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Newsletter – February 201701 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Barristers Housing Newsletter August 201701 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Day 2015 – Presentations01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Housing Newsletter – October 201501 Jan 2018
- Health, Social Care and Court of ProtectionCatherine represents local authorities across the full range of community care issues, in particular the Administrative Court, and also Court of Protection, offering a sympathetic touch when dealing with sensitive issues.Catherine regularly appears in the Court of Protection, in particular concerned with challenges to deprivation of liberty. She represented the local authority in a significant case before Hayden J considering the question of the capacity of a brain-damaged man with alcoholism to make decisions about his residence and care.
Cases
- R. (on the application of SB) v Newham LBC [2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin) – the duty on a local authority to meet the accommodation-related care needs of asylum seekers
- R. (on the application of BG) v Suffolk CC [2022] EWCA Civ 1047 – whether a local authority has the power to pay for holidays to meet a disabled person’s needs
- Tower Hamlets LBC v PB [2020] EWCOP 34 – capacity to decide to drink alcohol
- R (Aburas) v Southwark LBC [2019] EWHC 2754 (Admin) – when a local authority should meet looked after needs for a stateless man with no recourse to public funds in need of accommodation
- Court of Appeal: Holidays and recreation for people with care needs13 Jun 2022
- Important judgment relating to the 2014 Care Act decides Suffolk County Council were wrong in law to not assist two disabled men14 Dec 2021
- Accommodation, care needs and the Localism Act30 Oct 2019
- Supreme Court Judgment in Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Limited01 Jan 2018
- M v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 59501 Jan 2018
- F v Birmingham City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 142701 Jan 2018
- Costs in judicial review claims where a settlement is reached before trial01 Jan 2018
- Expert evidence in age assessment cases01 Jan 2018
- Public Law and Judicial Review
Catherine is highly experienced in the Administrative Court. She has appeared in innumerable cases before the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal including the lead case on costs when a judicial review claim is settled, M v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595.
Catherine has a particular interest in age assessment cases since successfully challenging the merits of “expert” evidence in R. (on the application of R) v Croydon LBC where her cross-examination of the Claimant’s expert thoroughly discredited her evidence.
She represents many local authorities in relation to age assessments, and the issues arising out of them, and has conducted trials of the age in the quasi-judicial review jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal as well as before that in the Administrative Court.
- R. (on the application of SB) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2023] EWCA Civ 924 – the right approach to short form assessments and judicial review of age assessments
- R. (on the application of M) v Waltham Forest LBC [2021] EWHC 2241 (Admin) – where a local authority agrees to re-open an assessment, that does not mean that the process should start afresh
- R (AB) v Kent CC [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin) – the extent to which a local authority can, when asked to assess the age of a putative child, carry out an abbreviated assessment.
- The Baroque vs the Rococo10 Jul 2024
- SB v RBKC: Catherine Rowlands secures win at the Court of Appeal31 Jul 2023
- What is a “deliberate” act?24 May 2022
- Accommodation, care needs and the Localism Act30 Oct 2019
- Cornerstone Double Triple Whammy at Supreme Court Today01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Trio in Supreme Court Triple Whammy01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone note Supreme Court homelessness judgment01 Jan 2018
- Vulnerability and priority need: triple whammy in the Supreme Court01 Jan 2018
- Webb and Perks v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Land Registry 20th April 201101 Jan 2018
- R. (on the application of U) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 3312 (Admin)01 Jan 2018
- R. (on the application of R) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 1473 (Admin)01 Jan 2018
- Disabled, but not vulnerable01 Jan 2018
- Costs in judicial review claims where a settlement is reached before trial01 Jan 2018
- Costs in JRs generally and for age assessment cases01 Jan 2018
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
Catherine is an accredited mediator and uses her skills as such to represent her clients in ADR.