Ali v Westminster City Council; Nairne v Camden London Borough Council: CA 24 Jul 1998

The County Court had no power to grant an interim injunction without statutory provision. No power existed either to order the Local Authority to provide accommodation to a homelessness applicant pending a decision on the review.
Held: Parliament appropriately vested a discretion in the local authority to decide whether or not to house an applicant asking for a review of the authority’s decision under s 202, or appealing against the review under s 204. Local authorities are well used to dealing with these type of cases. They know the circumstances of the applicants, and the range and availability of accommodation in their area. They have policies in place to guide them in exercising their discretion. It is a matter of common sense that such decisions should remain within their ambit, and not the courts.


Otton LJ


Times 16-Sep-1998


Housing Act 1985 202 204


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Brighton and Hove Council ex parte Nacion (2) CA 1-Feb-1999
The applicant sought review of a decision not to offer him temporary accomodation pending an appeal following a review of a refusal to offer him emergency accomodation. He had become homeless as a result of imprisonment.
Held: The section gave . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77735