The court considered whether a successful appeal against a local authority’s decision on the need for emergency housing should lead to the case being remitted to them for a further review. May LJ defined the question to be: ‘whether there was any real prospect that Tower Hamlets, acting rationally, and with the benefit of further enquiry, might have been satisfied that Mrs Deugi was intentionally homeless.’ to which he answered:
‘I express the question thus, conscious that close analysis of three decisions of this Court could raise something of a debate. I have already set out in paragraph 28 Chadwick LJ’s approach in [Crawley BC v B (2000) 32 HLR 636, 651] – ‘the only decision . . that the council, acting rationally, could reach.’ In Bond v Leicester City Council (2002) HLR 158 at 168, Hale LJ expressed her conclusion as ‘ . . more likely than not that if the authority had asked themselves the right question they would have reached the conclusion . . ‘. The submission made in Bond was in terms of ‘the only possible conclusion’ (see page 167); and it looks as if Hale LJ was influenced by the definition of domestic violence in s. 177 of the 1996 Act. In Ekwuru v Westminster C.C. (2004) HLR 98 at 205, Schiemann LJ held that ‘there is no real prospect of the authority turning up further material which would entitle it to reach the conclusion that . . ‘. My formulation, which may perhaps be seen as an amalgam of Chadwick LJ and Schiemann LJ, is intended to reflect the fact that this appeal process is in the nature of judicial review.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Gage Lord Justice May Lord Justice Rix
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 159
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Griffiths v St Helens Council CA 7-Mar-2006
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local . .
Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Cited – Slater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
Cited – London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Administrative
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238889