The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested a review of that decision. The decision on the review / upheld the original decision. His notice requesting a further review was out of time, and refused on that basis. He challenged that refusal in the County Court who found good reason. The Council now appealed.
Held: The judge had misdirected himself. The mere fact that a person is unrepresented could not amount to a good reason for delay in bringing an appeal: ‘It is clear, therefore, that the fact that a party is not professionally represented could play only a very limited, if any, part in the assessment of whether or not there was good reason for a departure from the time limit in bringing the appeal in cases of this sort.’ and: Having examined the particular circumstances of the present case I am unable to conclude that the Respondent had good reason for the issuing of the appeal out of time for all of the reasons which I have already given. Against the backdrop of the authorities of Hysaj and Kigen I am unable to conclude that Mr O’Sullivan’s point in relation to costs protection from the grant of Legal Aid adds materially to the considerations in the present case.’
Judges:
Mr Justice Dove
Citations:
[2019] EWHC 749 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor QBD 1998
Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.635967
