Mamo v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2015] EWCA Civ 695 (30 April 2015)

Mamo v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2015] EWCA Civ 695 (30 April 2015)

The application was not brought promptly or within the required time; the existence of a continuing duty does not allow indefinite delay in bringing judicial review; an alternative remedy was available and adequate.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 695
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Emebet Mamo; Respondent/respondent: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (housing) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Homelessness, Limitation Periods, Alternative Remedy
Administrative Law Housing Law Judicial Review Homelessness Limitation Periods Alternative Remedy

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emebet Mamo

Applicant/appellant

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (housing) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was brought within time or promptly
  2. 2 Whether there was a continuing duty under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether an alternative remedy was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not brought promptly or within the required time; the existence of a continuing duty does not allow indefinite delay in bringing judicial review; an alternative remedy was available and adequate.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused