Taylor v London Borough Of Enfield [2002] EWCA Civ 893 (29 May 2002)

Taylor v London Borough Of Enfield [2002] EWCA Civ 893 (29 May 2002)

The review panel's reasons, though imperfectly expressed, did not amount to a significant error of law and the decision was not plainly perverse. The case did not raise an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason to justify a second appeal under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 893
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Steven Taylor; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Enfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Priority Need, Vulnerability, Judicial Review, Appeals Process
Housing Law Administrative Law Homelessness Priority Need Vulnerability Judicial Review Appeals Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Taylor

Claimant/applicant

London Borough of Enfield

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review panel erred in law in determining the applicant was not vulnerable under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the review panel's decision was perverse or failed to consider relevant medical evidence
  3. 3 Whether the case met the threshold for a second appeal under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The review panel's reasons, though imperfectly expressed, did not amount to a significant error of law and the decision was not plainly perverse. The case did not raise an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason to justify a second appeal under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • Detailed assessment of publicly funded applicant's costs