Bantamagbari, R (on the application of) v Westminster
Westminster acted unlawfully in refusing to accept responsibility for the claimant under the Housing Act 1996 because Southwark's decision as to intentionality was valid and binding, and Westminster was not entitled to challenge it outside judicial review, which it failed to pursue in time.
- Parties
- Claimant: Bashir Bantamagbari; First Defendant: City of Westminster; Second Defendant: London Borough of Southwark
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed
- Legal Topics
- Homelessness, Local Authority Duties, Judicial Review, Housing Act 1996, Referral of Homeless Applicants
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bashir Bantamagbari
Claimant
City of Westminster
First Defendant
London Borough of Southwark
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Westminster acted unlawfully in refusing to accept the referral of the claimant under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996
- 2 Whether Southwark's decision under section 193 regarding intentional homelessness was valid and binding
- 3 Whether Westminster could challenge Southwark's decision outside judicial review and out of time
Ratio Decidendi
Westminster acted unlawfully in refusing to accept responsibility for the claimant under the Housing Act 1996 because Southwark's decision as to intentionality was valid and binding, and Westminster was not entitled to challenge it outside judicial review, which it failed to pursue in time.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed
Orders
- The City of Westminster is required to determine the claimant's application in compliance with Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
- The City of Westminster is to pay the claimant's costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment