Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark ex parte Campisi: CA 9 Jul 1998

The claimant had made more than one application for emergency housing.
Held: ‘Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant’s claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and considering the case afresh’ A fresh claim attracts all the substantive and procedural consequences of an initial claim whereas a repetitious claim does not. The authority may start with the assumption that the first decision as to suitability was correct and then go on to consider whether, disregarding material which is insignificant or incredible or which was available to the applicant at the time of the determination of his first claim, the new material placed in front of the local authority gives reason to believe that the decision as to homelessness ought to be reversed. This process inevitably involves making a judgment as to the significance and credibility of the new material. A local authority’s decision that there has been no material change in circumstances can only be challenged on Wednesbury grounds.

Judges:

Schiemann, Gibson and Mummery LJJ

Citations:

(1998) 31 HLR 560, [1998] EWCA Civ 1188, [1998] 2 All ER 939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGriffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark Admn 29-Oct-2004
The applicant had sought emergency housing with her husband, but refused accomodation on a particuar estate for her safety. She had then been evicted form the temporary housing supplied on the application. After a series of temporary arrangements . .
CitedRegina (Fatima Jeylani) v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2002
A declaration was granted requiring the local authority to consider the further homelessness application after the authority had followed the approach in Campisi and in consequence, it had refused to consider a further homelessness application of . .
CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144667