Comte Leaf Saint Sepulchre, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
[2023] EWHC 2913 (Admin)
Gwladys Fertre v Vale of White Horse District Council
22 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1234 (KB)
High Court
A French person living in the UK was denied housing. She appealed, but the council tried to stop the appeal. The judge said the appeal can continue because it's important to decide whether people with her status should get housing assistance, even though she now has temporary housing. Three other groups were also allowed to participate in the case because of its importance.
Key Facts
- •Ms Fertre, a French national with pre-settled status in the UK, was refused housing assistance by the Vale of White Horse District Council (VWDC).
- •VWDC's refusal was based on Ms Fertre's lack of economic activity and their interpretation of Article 23 of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement.
- •Ms Fertre appealed VWDC's decision, but the appeal mistakenly named the wrong council.
- •While the appeal's procedural issues were being resolved, Ms Fertre experienced personal difficulties (children in care, compulsory mental health detention).
- •Ms Fertre made a fresh application for housing assistance after being discharged from mental health care.
- •VWDC argued to strike out Ms Fertre's appeal on the grounds of abandonment, abuse of process, and the appeal being academic.
- •Ms Fertre obtained supported accommodation, subsequently withdrawing her latest application for housing assistance.
- •Three organizations (The3Million Ltd, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Independent Monitoring Authority) sought to intervene in the appeal.
Legal Principles
Right to appeal under s. 204(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1996.
Housing Act 1996
Power of the court to strike out an appeal under CPR 52.18.
CPR 52.18
Inherent power of the court to strike out an appeal if it's an abuse of process.
Halsbury’s Laws, Civil Procedure, Volume 12, para. 1033
The court's inherent jurisdiction to strike out an appeal that is academic.
Ainsbury v. Millington (Note) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 379
Test for determining whether an appeal has become academic: whether the appellant no longer has any interest (benefit) in the outcome.
Deugi, Ainsbury v. Millington, Stanley v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, Ugiagbe v London Borough of Southwark
A reviewer under s. 202 of the Housing Act 1996 may substitute an adverse decision on different grounds to the original decision.
Temur v Hackney London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 877
A local authority cannot owe two different housing duties at the same time.
R (Konodyba) v RB Kensington & Chelsea [2011] EWHC 2653 (Admin)
Outcomes
VWDC's application to strike out the appeal was dismissed.
The court found that Ms Fertre had not abandoned her appeal, that continuing the appeal was not an abuse of process, and that the appeal was not academic due to Ms Fertre's ongoing legitimate interest in its outcome (including the risk of future homelessness and the broader public importance of the legal issue).
The applications by the three proposed intervenors to intervene in the appeal were granted.
The court considered that the intervenors' expertise would assist in the efficient determination of the important legal issue.
Similar Cases
Jean Lloyd v His Honour Judge North & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1497 (KB)
Amina Ahamed, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey
[2023] EWCA Civ 975
EM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Havering
[2024] EWHC 3016 (Admin)
Here For Good, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2817 (Admin)