Gentle v London Borough of Wandsworth [2005] EWCA Civ 1377 (03 November 2005)

Gentle v London Borough of Wandsworth [2005] EWCA Civ 1377 (03 November 2005)

Even if there was a procedural irregularity in failing to give proper reasons or notify under regulation 8(2), there was no compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal as no injustice was suffered and the applicant's case was fully considered on the relevant evidence.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1377
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Kathleen Gentle; Respondent/respondent: London Borough of Wandsworth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Priority Need, Housing Act 1996, Review Procedures
Housing Law Administrative Law Homelessness Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Priority Need Housing Act 1996 Review Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Gentle

Applicant/appellant

London Borough of Wandsworth

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reviewing officer failed to comply with regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 by not notifying the applicant of a procedural irregularity in the original decision
  2. 2 Whether the failure to give proper reasons in the original decision letter constituted a procedural irregularity justifying intervention on a second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Even if there was a procedural irregularity in failing to give proper reasons or notify under regulation 8(2), there was no compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal as no injustice was suffered and the applicant's case was fully considered on the relevant evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused