Gil v London Borough of Camden [2020] EWHC 735 (QB) (27 March 2020)

Gil v London Borough of Camden [2020] EWHC 735 (QB) (27 March 2020)

The appeal was out of time, with no application for extension or evidence of good reason for the delay, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The recorder's decision to proceed in the appellant's absence was a proper exercise of case management discretion.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 735
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Cordelia Gil; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Homelessness Appeals, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Case Management Discretion
Housing Law Civil Procedure Homelessness Appeals Extension of Time Jurisdiction Case Management Discretion

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cordelia Gil

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Camden

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed in time under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the recorder had jurisdiction to hear the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the recorder was correct to proceed in the appellant's absence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was out of time, with no application for extension or evidence of good reason for the delay, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The recorder's decision to proceed in the appellant's absence was a proper exercise of case management discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • No order on costs pending appellant's response to respondent's application for costs