Mamo v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Mamo v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Permission refused as the application was not brought within time or promptly, and there is an adequate alternative remedy available.

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 / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Homelessness, Delay, Alternative Remedy
Administrative Law Housing Law Judicial Review Homelessness Delay Alternative Remedy

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emebet Mamo

Applicant/appellant

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / 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 Adequacy of alternative remedy via Part 7 application

Ratio Decidendi

Permission refused as the application was not brought within time or promptly, and there is an adequate alternative remedy available.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused