C v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 4 Jul 2003

The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become intentionally homeless. The authority refused to extend her time to request a review. She now appealed a similar refusal of the court.
Held: In so far as the local housing authority was exercising an extra-statutory discretion, it was fully entitled to take it no further. The authority gave full reasons why the department was not prepared to accede to the request. This decision is even further beyond challenge by judicial review than a decision taken under s. 202(3).


Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Dyson


[2003] EWCA Civ 927, Times 12-Aug-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003




Housing Act 1996 202 204


England and Wales


CitedRegina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, ex parte Nadia Saber QBD 1991
It is not uncommon, after a decision has been reached that an applicant for housing under Part III of the Act became intentionally homeless, for a request to be made to reconsider the decision in the light of additional material or argument. Such a . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited HL 1988
The House was asked whether a rating authority could refuse to repay rates which had been paid by mistake.
Held: ‘Parliament must have intended the rating authorities to act in the same high principled way expected by the court of its own . .
CitedRegina v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Guinness Plc CA 1989
The court asked about the standard of decision making at which a court could intervene: ‘Irrationality, at least in the sense of failing to take account of relevant factors or taking account of irrelevant factors, is a difficult concept in the . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedRegina v Lord Mayor and Citizens of City of Westminster ex parte Ellioua CA 2-Jul-1998
The applicant sought to be rehoused. On review it was decided that she was intentionally homeless. She asked the authority to review that decision (a re-review). The authority said it had no power so to do. She had a right to appeal on a point of . .
CitedDemetri v Westminster City Council CA 12-Nov-1999
A right of appeal against a Housing authority’s decision lay only against the original decision itself after a review, and the notice of appeal was to be given with 21 days of the original review. A council in its discretion can decide to reconsider . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.184258