ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor [2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin) (14 June 2024)

ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor [2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin) (14 June 2024)

The First Defendant lawfully notified the Claimant of its decision by email and exercised its discretion under section 188(3) Housing Act 1996 in accordance with established principles. The Second Defendant's notice practices were within the statutory scheme. There was no arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success. The order for interim relief was made on a mistaken factual premise and should be set aside. The Claimant is to pay the First Defendant's costs.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: ZR; First Defendant: London Borough of Haringey; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Interim Relief Applications; Costs Determination
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused as against the First Defendant; interim relief order set aside; Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs; no finding of unlawfulness against the Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
Homelessness Assistance, Asylum Support Cessation, Judicial Review Procedure, Notice Requirements, Article 3 ECHR, Interim Relief, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Housing Law Immigration Law Human Rights Homelessness Assistance Asylum Support Cessation Judicial Review Procedure Notice Requirements +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZR

Claimant

London Borough of Haringey

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Interim Relief Applications; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant failed to provide accommodation pending review under section 188(3) Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant's change in notice practice for cessation of asylum support was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant's notification of its decision complied with statutory and procedural requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant lawfully notified the Claimant of its decision by email and exercised its discretion under section 188(3) Housing Act 1996 in accordance with established principles. The Second Defendant's notice practices were within the statutory scheme. There was no arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success. The order for interim relief was made on a mistaken factual premise and should be set aside. The Claimant is to pay the First Defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused as against the First Defendant; interim relief order set aside; Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs; no finding of unlawfulness against the Second Defendant.

Orders

  • Order of Lang J dated 20 December 2023 set aside
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs