England v Westminster City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Patten |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 106 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2009/1647 |
| Date | 03 February 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 106
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(His Honour Judge Mitchell)
Before: Lord Justice Patten
Case No: B4/2009/1647
Mr Mark Baumohl (instructed by Messrs Moss Beachlly Mullem & Coleman) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
(As Approved)
Lord Justice Patten:
Despite Mr Baumohl's submissions I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that this appeal would have no real prospect of success and would not satisfy the additional criteria imposed by CPR 52.13, albeit that the hurdle that has to be overcome in a case such as this may be somewhat lower than in other cases where the first decision was a fully articulated judicial decision.
Briefly stated, the reasons for my view are as follows. The question for HHJ Mitchell was whether the review decision of the 30 April 2009, that the council's duty to the appellant as a homeless person under section 193 had been discharged because the appellant had made herself intentionally homeless, was open to challenge as disclosing an error of law. I am prepared to accept that a section 204 appeal is maintainable on these grounds if it contains a misdirection as to the legal test to be applied or is otherwise reviewable on conventional Wednesbury grounds.
Miss England initially appealed to the county court under section 204 on two grounds: firstly that the reviewing officer had wrongly delegated her duty to undertake her own enquiries; and secondly that those enquiries that were carried out were inadequate. They failed to deal with matters in an appropriate way and failed to give Miss England a proper opportunity to comment or defend herself. She also applied to HHJ Mitchell to add a further ground of appeal to the effect that the decision making process was not compliant with Article 6 of the Convention, but the judge refused that application and although included in the grounds of appeal that point is not pursued.
So the permission application as it comes before me is founded really on the two main grounds which the judge was asked to deal with, namely: first whether or not the local authority had delegated its duty to investigate, and the judge found that it had not; and secondly whether the judge was right to distinguish the decision of the High Court in West Dorset District Council v West Dorset Housing Association ex parte Gerrard [1994] 27 HLR 150 on the grounds that in this case there had been no abdication of responsibility by the local authority in relation to the investigative function and that that case related to a decision under section 62 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial