Solicitors have welcomed a Supreme Court ruling that domestic violence extends beyond physical contact to include other forms of violent conduct.

Giving judgment in Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow last week, Lady Hale said that ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 includes physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse that, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm. She said ‘physical violence’ is not the only natural meaning of the word ‘violence’; another is ‘strength or intensity of emotion, fervour, passion’. Hale added that international and governmental understanding of the term had developed beyond physical contact.

The case concerned the council’s duty to provide housing for people who had become homeless. The appellant left her home with her two children because of her husband’s behaviour, which included shouting in front of the children. She told housing officers she was afraid he might hit her if she confronted him.

The officers decided she was not homeless because her husband had never hit her or threatened to do so. They said the probability of domestic violence was low and concluded it was reasonable for her to stay in the matrimonial home.

Christina Blacklaws, Law Society council member for child care, said the ‘hugely significant and extremely welcome’ judgment would give victims of domestic violence greater access to justice in the context of family and housing law. She said: ‘Having the Supreme Court recognise the multi-faceted and complex nature of domestic violence is of enormous importance and should herald a return to better decision-making by local authorities.’

Blacklaws said the decision will also be important in relation to proposals in the green paper on legal aid, in which domestic violence is given an ‘inappropriately narrow’ definition. ‘This judgment gives us ammunition to challenge the government’s plans so we can ensure victims of domestic violence continue to receive expert legal advice and assistance,’ she said.

Elspeth Thomson, partner at Newcastle firm David Gray, said: ‘It is ironic the Supreme Court made this decision at a time when the government is seeking to limit the definition to mean not just violence, but circumstances where that violence is evidenced by court proceedings or criminal records.’