ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor

ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor

The First Defendant lawfully notified the Claimant of its decision and exercised its discretion not to provide interim accommodation pending review; the Second Defendant's practice was within the statutory scheme and caused no prejudice to the Claimant. The claim against the Second Defendant was academic and not suitable for judicial determination. There was no arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success.

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 Application; Costs and Article 3 Claim
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; interim relief set aside; costs awarded to First Defendant; Article 3 claim stayed pending County Court proceedings.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Homelessness, Asylum Support, Notice Requirements, Article 3 ECHR, Public Sector Equality Duty
Administrative Law Housing Law Immigration Law Human Rights Judicial Review Homelessness Asylum Support Notice Requirements +2 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 19 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 Application; Costs and Article 3 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant failed to provide accommodation pending a decision under section 184 Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant's change of practice regarding notice periods for cessation of asylum support was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR due to the Claimant's street homelessness

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant lawfully notified the Claimant of its decision and exercised its discretion not to provide interim accommodation pending review; the Second Defendant's practice was within the statutory scheme and caused no prejudice to the Claimant. The claim against the Second Defendant was academic and not suitable for judicial determination. There was no arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; interim relief set aside; costs awarded to First Defendant; Article 3 claim stayed pending County Court proceedings.

Orders

  • Order of Lang J set aside
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs