Michael Otobo v Slough Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Kitchin |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 2525 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2014/3572 and C1/2014/3572 A |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 July 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 2525
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION
Courtroom No. 74
Room E307
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE Lady Justice Arden
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE Lord Justice Kitchin
Case No: C1/2014/3572 and C1/2014/3572 A
Mr M Otobo appeared In Person
Mr A Lane (instructed by SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This is an appeal by Mr Michael Otobo against the order dated 17 October 2014 of Whipple J. She refused his application for judicial review and she ordered him to pay the defendant's costs for the acknowledgment of service assessed at £450 and gave directions for objections on costs within 14 days. We are concerned with the main part of the order which dismissed the application for judicial review.
Mr Otobo appealed to this court. I gave him permission to appeal as he produced evidence that he had applied to this court immediately prior to the hearing on 16 October 2016 and that he had produced a statement of fitness for work showing that he should not be involved in court proceedings for one month. In his letter to the court he asked for an adjournment on the grounds of ill health.
The respondent to this appeal, Slough Borough Council, did not receive those documents. They were not sent to them directly and they did not receive them from the court. Nor does it appear that the judge saw those documents as the judge gave judgment on the basis that Mr Otobo had simply chosen not to appear.
The judge made no reference to any application to adjourn. Therefore, as I said in my reasons for giving permission, there were no reasons given for refusing an adjournment and as counsel, Mr Andrew Lane, for Slough Borough Council, accepts, very often when an application is made for an adjournment on ill health grounds, if they are put forward bona fide, there is usually a short adjournment so that the party in question can appear.
The reasons which I gave also went on to refer to an application for disclosure of documents which Mr Otobo had made for the disclosure of the respondent's conversations with his landlord and said that these could be considered if the order of the Administrative Court were set aside on the grounds of failure to consider his application for an adjournment.
I did not say that the court granted permission to apply for judicial review in that event and that that would be heard by this court, but insofar as necessary I would make that order today as we have heard full argument on the questions raised by the application for judicial review.
I should explain that Mr Otobo is here representing himself again today. He had solicitors on the record and legal aid, but they were allowed to come off the record last week. Mr Otobo therefore is without his solicitors, but they prepared the bundles and made an application in the appropriate way. The court wrote to Mr Otobo asking him to say by 12.00pm last Friday, if he wished to apply for an adjournment, and nothing was heard from him and indeed he has appeared here this morning.
He has explained to us that he has medication and that this can make him, from time to time, sleepy, but he has been able to deal with this matter this morning and we are grateful to him for his careful and helpful submissions.
Now, it is not clear what happened on 16 October. It does seem that the judge did not have the application and that it may have been received, but got lost in the system. It should have been served on the respondent but the respondent did not receive it. Mr Otobo does not say that the court acknowledged receipt. He says that he sent the application by fax, but that due to various changes of his living arrangements he no longer has copies of all his documents and indeed his solicitors have retained many of them.
Therefore, for today's purposes, for this part of the judgment at least, I am prepared to assume that the judge should have considered the adjournment application and that the application would have been granted. If it becomes critical to pursue this matter further, I will come back to it.
Therefore, I will proceed on the basis that the issue which we have to decide is whether the judicial review grounds were well made or whether the judge was correct to make an order dismissing the application for judicial review. Now, I need to turn to the background.
Mr Otobo used to live in accommodation belonging to Longwood Park Housing Association from whom he had a tenancy. On 17 June 2013, he asked his Local Authority, Slough Borough Council, whether he would be entitled to Housing Benefit if he became a fulltime student.
He must have mentioned to the respondent that he had or was going to apply for employment support or allowance or some other benefit, but we do not have all the correspondence. He therefore conducted this correspondence and the Local Authority wrote back to him on 17 June 2013 as follows:
‘Dear Mr Michael Otobo, thank you for your correspondence. In relation to your impending student status and how it would affect your benefits, I wish to advise you that in your case as long as you are on Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment and Support allowance, Incapacitated Benefit, you will be classed as an eligible student and you will be able to continue to receive help with your Housing Benefit. I hope the above response answers your query. Do not hesitate to contact us should your status change or should you have further queries in relation to this matter’.
That letter is important in understanding the application. There was no mention of any difference between income-related and contribution-based employment support allowance. The difference is important because under Regulation 56 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Mr Otobo was not entitled to Housing Benefit if he had contribution-based employment support allowance and he has not suggested otherwise.
Now, thereafter Mr Otobo made an application for Housing Benefit. This was refused on 24 February 2014 on the basis that he was a full-time student and therefore ineligible for Housing Benefit. Mr Otobo applied for a review decision. That was not made until 20 June 2014, when the reviewing officer held that he was not entitled to Housing Benefit on the basis of Regulation 56, to which I have referred.
Now,...
To continue reading
Request your trial