Minott, R (On the Application Of) v Cambridge City Council (Rev 1)

Minott, R (On the Application Of) v Cambridge City Council (Rev 1)

The claimant's continued occupation of temporary accommodation after the expiry of his licence and the end of the council's housing duty was unlawful and undertaken to manipulate the statutory regime. The mere passage of time and unlawful occupation did not constitute a new fact or establish a local connection for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Lemari Minott; Defendant: Cambridge City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Homelessness Applications, Local Connection Under Housing Act 1996, Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions
Administrative Law Housing Law Homelessness Applications Local Connection Under Housing Act 1996 Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lemari Minott

Claimant

Cambridge City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unlawful occupation of temporary accommodation can establish a 'local connection' under s.199 Housing Act 1996 for a renewed homelessness application
  2. 2 Whether the local authority's refusal to accept a new homelessness application was irrational or unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's continued occupation of temporary accommodation after the expiry of his licence and the end of the council's housing duty was unlawful and undertaken to manipulate the statutory regime. The mere passage of time and unlawful occupation did not constitute a new fact or establish a local connection for the purposes of a renewed homelessness application. The council's refusal to accept the new application was rational and lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed