Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi Jaberi, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 1045 (Admin)
R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon
28 November 2023
[2023] UKSC 45
Supreme Court
A council failed to provide suitable housing to a disabled mother, claiming it didn't have the money or homes. The Supreme Court said the council *must* follow the law, but the judge should consider whether the council had done all it *reasonably* could, and also whether there's a fair way to provide suitable housing without harming others on the waiting list. The case goes back to a lower court to look at the situation again with more information.
Key Facts
- •Ms Imam, a wheelchair user with three children, was deemed by Croydon Council to be owed a duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable housing.
- •Croydon admitted breaching this duty from June 2015, failing to provide suitable accommodation despite acknowledging the inadequacy of the temporary housing provided.
- •Croydon argued resource constraints (budgetary pressures and limited housing stock) prevented immediate provision of suitable housing.
- •Ms Imam sought a mandatory order compelling Croydon to provide suitable accommodation.
- •The case addressed whether resource limitations justify non-compliance with statutory housing duties and the appropriate judicial remedy.
Legal Principles
Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 imposes a duty on local housing authorities to secure suitable accommodation for eligible applicants; this duty is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified.
Housing Act 1996, section 193(2)
While remedies in public law are discretionary, the court should not routinely decline to grant relief to compel performance of a statutory duty due to resource limitations. A court's refusal must be clearly justified.
R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2008] 1 WLR 1587; De Smith’s Judicial Review
A court will not make a mandatory order if compliance is impossible. Impossibility considers not only immediately available resources but also the potential disruption of existing resource allocation plans by a court order.
Re The Bristol and North Somerset Railway Co (1877) 3 QBD 10
When a housing authority breaches its duty under section 193(2), the onus is on the authority to explain why a mandatory order should not be made. The authority must demonstrate it has taken all reasonable steps to comply.
Court of Appeal judgment in this case
A public authority with limited resources must prioritize statutory duties over discretionary functions.
R v East Sussex County Council, Ex p Tandy [1998] AC 714
Outcomes
Croydon's appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court found that Croydon had not sufficiently demonstrated why a mandatory order was impossible, failing to adequately address the availability of suitable properties and the potential for resource reallocation. The court emphasized the importance of enforcing Parliament's will and Croydon's obligation to prioritize its statutory duty to provide housing.
The case was remitted to the High Court for rehearing with fresh evidence.
The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court felt that the lower court hadn't considered all aspects of the case fully, and that additional evidence was needed on the severity of the impact on Ms Imam. The High Court would be provided with guidance on how to consider the case.
Similar Cases
Oday Yabari, R (on the application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2024] EWHC 654 (Admin)
Sahra Moge v London Brough of Ealing
[2023] EWCA Civ 464
Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2023] EWCA Civ 992