The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: The applicant’s human rights were engaged by the decision. When looking at whether judicial review was a sufficient remedy, the court must look to the statutory context. The first recommendation by the panel lacked the necessary independence, but that decision was not rendered valueless. The availability of judicial review would very likely cure any defect in the initial decision in the absence of some special feature. Laws LJ said that there is some danger of undermining legal certainty by excessive debates over how many angels can stand on the head of the article 6 pin.
Laws LJ said: ‘The basis of judicial review rests in the free-standing principle that every action of a public body must be justified by law, and at common law the High Court is the arbiter of all claimed justifications.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Waller, The President
Citations:
Times 02-Jan-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1812
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6, National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977) 25, Local Authority Social Services (Complaints Procedure) Order 1990 (1990 No 2244) 7B(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Runa Begum CA 6-Mar-2002
The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of the Personal Representatives of Christopher Beeson) v Dorset County Council and Another QBD 30-Nov-2001
The Council had provided financial assistance for the care of the claimant’s father before his death in a residential home. Those costs were in part recoverable as a civil debt. His father had given him the house by deed of gift. The regulations . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (on the Application of the Personal Representatives of Christopher Beeson) v Dorset County Council and Another QBD 30-Nov-2001
The Council had provided financial assistance for the care of the claimant’s father before his death in a residential home. Those costs were in part recoverable as a civil debt. His father had given him the house by deed of gift. The regulations . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant . .
Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Human Rights, Judicial Review
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.178524
