R Linkevicius v London Borough of Islington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Richard Whittam |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 888 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CO/6508/2016 |
[2017] EWHC 888 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Richard Whittam QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
CO/6508/2016
Mr Lindsay Johnson (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Mr Christopher Baker (instructed by London Borough of Islington) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision by Baker J of 17 January of this year. I have been greatly assisted by both counsel in the case, by their written and oral submissions. The point taken in the application is that the defendant council has not applied properly a determination or a decision to determine under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996. So although the council had accepted a duty, they have not taken the appropriate matters into consideration.
I have listened to the arguments with care in relation to the statutory construction. I have Lord Carnwath's observations drawn to my attention initially from the Camden case [2013] UKSC 10 and also the statutory construction in relation to the request for a review of the decision under section 202 of the Act.
In my view at this stage — bearing in mind a review is being undertaken by the council the determination of which will be known, as I understand it, on the 24th of this month — judicial review is not appropriate for the reasons that Baker J set out, that there is a proper right to review under the statutory scheme and provision made for the decision to be challenged in the county court, and as he put it:
"The decision that the defendant owes to the claimant a duty limited to a duty to secure suitable accommodation for the claimant himself, and not that would be suitable for his mother and/or sister to live in as well, is plainly a decision as to what duty, if any, is owed to the claimant within section 202(1)(b)."
( Quote unchecked)
I understand there has been reference to 202(1)(f) in the submissions...
To continue reading
Request your trial