R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin) |
| Date | 29 July 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Before Mr Justice Elias
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Local authority - area housing policy - out-of-borough housing policy
A local authority's out-of-area housing policy was not incompatible with its duty to house applicants within its district.
Mr Justice Elias so held in a reserved judgment in the Queen's Bench Division on July 29, 2005, when dismissing an application for judicial review by the claimant, Tekin Calgin, of London Borough of Enfield's out-of-area placements policy adopted on March 31, 2004, for housing the homeless.
HIS LORDSHIP said that section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 provided that when discharging its duty to provide accommodation for a homeless applicant in priority need under section 193, the authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, secure that accommodation was available in its district.
The claimant contended that the policy was ultra vires, in particular, because it reflected a misunderstanding of "reasonable practicability" and allowed considerations of cost. The authority adopted the policy based on the acute shortage of affordable housing.
His Lordship said that the court should only interfere only if the decision was unlawful, on the Wednesbury ((1948) 1 KB 223) criteria.
The consideration was not simply what was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Borough of Bromley v Celisa Broderick
...dealing with an ‘out of borough’ placement policy, such as R (Yumsak) v Enfield London Borough Council [2003] HLR 1, and R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council [2006] 1 All ER 112, were decided.” 26 In a similar vein, in Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Saleh [2019] EWCA Civ 1......
-
Sahra Moge v London Borough of Ealing
...priority need will be vulnerable in this sense. The authority must also have a proper evidential basis for their decision: R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin), [2006] HLR 58, para 32. 32. It must be clear from the decision that proper consideration has been......
-
Nadia Zaman v London Borough of Waltham Forest
...dealing with an ‘out of borough’ placement policy, such as R (Yumsak) v Enfield London Borough Council [2003] HLR 1, and R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council [2006] 1 All ER 112, were decided.” 43 Baroness Hale thus said that, if it is not reasonably practicable to accommodate “in b......
-
R the Governing Body of the London Oratory School v The Schools Adjudicator The British Humanist Association and Another (Interested Parties)
...are. The Governing Body must further have a proper evidential basis for its decision to depart from the Diocesan Guidance: R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin), [2006] HLR 58, para 32; it must be clear from the decision that proper consideration has been give......