Regina v London Borough of Newham and Bibi and Al-Nashed: CA 26 Apr 2001

The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a legitimate expectation: ‘In all legitimate expectation cases, whether substantive or procedural, three practical questions arise. The first question is to what has the public authority, whether by practice or by promise, committed itself; the second is whether the authority has acted or proposes to act unlawfully in relation to its commitment; the third is what the Court should do.’ The authority was to be obliged to honour that legitimate expectation to the extent of including it properly among the matters it considered when looking at their applications, and allocating to them housing. That obligation existed even if the authority had not been able to show that the claimants had not done anything to their detriment in relying upon the promise. Nevertheless, it did not create an obligation simply to fulfill the promise. Detrimental reliance does not necessarily ‘render it unfair to thwart a legitimate expectation.’ The court granted a declaration ‘that the local authority is under a duty to consider the applicants’ applications for suitable housing on the basis that they have a legitimate expectation that they will be provided by the authority with suitable accommodation on a secure tenancy.’

Schiemann LJ
Times 10-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237
Housing Act 1996
England and Wales
Appealed toRegina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Bibi, Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Al-Nashed Admn 18-Jan-1996
. .

Cited by:
CitedKariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2001
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new . .
CitedRegina (on the Application on Denis James Galligan) v the Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford Admn 22-Nov-2001
The applicant was director of the institute for socio-legal studies in Oxford. He made a decision to exclude a lecturer, and now challenged a decision by the University to set up an external enquiry into his decision, after an earlier decision to . .
Appeal fromRegina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Bibi, Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Al-Nashed Admn 18-Jan-1996
. .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 22-Oct-2004
The claimant sought asylum, being an Iraqi Kurd. He was not told by the defendant of its policy not to require internal relocation within the Kurdish autonomous zone. The policy had been applied for the benefit of others, as was revealed only in . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
CitedLindley, Regina (on the Application of) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 21-Sep-2006
The claimant, aged 69 suffered from cerebral palsy. The council had provided his care but he said they had represented to him that care would be provided in a new facility, and claimed a legitimate expectation. The defendant said that its changed . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
CitedRegina (Ashbrook) v East Sussex County Council CA 20-Nov-2002
The claimant complained that the respondent had failed properly to secure removal of an admitted obstruction to a public footpath. The landowner had applied for a diversion of the footpath, which the respondent recommended for adoption, but the . .
CitedGrimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education, Regina (on The Application of) v Learning and Skills Council Admn 12-Aug-2010
The applicant had applied to the respondent for funding for new buildings. The application was approved, but the application was rejected when the respondent ran out of funds. The claimant said that a legitimate expectation had been created, and . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Housing

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.147518