Eston Bernard v London Borough of Enfield: CA 4 Dec 2001

The applicant sought review of a decision by the local authority that he was intentionally homeless through a failure to pay his rent. He appealed a rejection of leave to appeal, and his appeal was with regard to the adequacy of the reasons given by the local authority for its decision. The claimant said he had insufficient to pay the rent, and the authority failed in its decision to explain in any detail how his budget could meet the sum required.
Held: The obligation to give reasons is imposed to ensure that the person affected knows what decision has been made and is put in a position to know whether there is any defect in the decision. In this case that object had been met.


Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Mr Justice Harrison


[2001] EWCA Civ 1831, [2002] HLR 46, [2001] NPC 178




Housing Act 1996 204, Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 3204)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Hawthorne CA 14-Jul-1994
A failure to pay rent and loss of a home which was caused by the tenant’s own poverty is not necessarily to be treated as intentional homelessness. . .
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.166947