Lomotey v London Borough Of Enfield [2004] EWCA Civ 627 (07 May 2004)

Lomotey v London Borough Of Enfield [2004] EWCA Civ 627 (07 May 2004)

The Review Panel did not act in a procedurally unfair manner as Ms Lomotey was given adequate opportunity to address the issues of collusion and her relationship with Mr Whyte; the regulations did not require further opportunity for oral or written submissions in the circumstances; the appeal is allowed and the County Court's order is reversed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 627
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Naomi Lomotey; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Enfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court judgment reversed.
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Procedural Fairness, Review of Administrative Decisions, Natural Justice, Right to Make Representations
Housing Law Administrative Law Human Rights Intentional Homelessness Procedural Fairness Review of Administrative Decisions Natural Justice Right to Make Representations

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naomi Lomotey

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Enfield

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Review Panel acted in a procedurally unfair manner by not allowing Ms Lomotey to address issues of collusion and her relationship with Mr Whyte
  2. 2 Whether the Review Panel was required to offer an oral hearing or further opportunity for written submissions under the relevant regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Review Panel did not act in a procedurally unfair manner as Ms Lomotey was given adequate opportunity to address the issues of collusion and her relationship with Mr Whyte; the regulations did not require further opportunity for oral or written submissions in the circumstances; the appeal is allowed and the County Court's order is reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court judgment reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs under section 11(1) of the Access to Justice Act; respondent's liability assessed as nil.