Ryde v London Borough of Enfield

Ryde v London Borough of Enfield

The authority's failure to notify under regulation 8(2) did not cause prejudice to the applicant, and the authority's decision, including the handling of medical evidence, was not Wednesbury unreasonable. No important point of principle or compelling reason justified a second appeal.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: John Ryde; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Enfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Legal Aid

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ryde

Claimant/applicant

London Borough of Enfield

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the local authority failed to comply with regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999
  2. 2 Whether the authority erred in not referring new medical evidence to a medical officer before making a review decision
  3. 3 Whether the authority's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The authority's failure to notify under regulation 8(2) did not cause prejudice to the applicant, and the authority's decision, including the handling of medical evidence, was not Wednesbury unreasonable. No important point of principle or compelling reason justified a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused with costs
  • Order made under section 11 of the Access to Justice Act