Key Facts
- •Ms Fertré appealed a homelessness decision to the wrong council (SODC instead of VWHDC).
- •SODC and VWHDC share services and addresses, leading to the error.
- •The appeal was filed after the deadline for appealing against VWHDC.
- •The lower court allowed amendment to substitute VWHDC as the respondent.
- •The housing councils appealed this decision to the High Court.
Legal Principles
Whether an appeal against the wrong respondent under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 can be amended to substitute the correct respondent.
Housing Act 1996, section 204
Rules of Civil Procedure (CPR) regarding amendment of parties.
CPR Part 3, CPR Part 19, CPR Part 52
Distinction between procedural irregularities and nullities in appeals.
Milburn-Snell v Evans [2011] EWCA Civ 577, Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (No 2) [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB), Parsons v George [2004] EWCA Civ 912, XYZ v Various Companies [2014] EWHC 4056 (QB)
The concept of 'substantial compliance' with procedural requirements.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex. p. Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 345
Court's discretion to amend appeals and the overriding objective.
CPR 3.10, CPR 52.17, CPR 1.2, San Vicente [2013] EWCA Civ 817
Imposing conditions on amendments, particularly concerning costs protection.
CPR 52.18, CPR 3.1
Outcomes
The appeal by the housing councils was dismissed.
The court found substantial compliance with procedural requirements, despite the error in naming the respondent. The judge's exercise of discretion in allowing the amendment was deemed appropriate and justified. The mistake was understandable, promptly rectified, and caused no significant prejudice to VWHDC beyond the inconvenience of participating in the proceedings.