Hillsden, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council [2015] EWHC 98 (Admin) (07 January 2015)

Hillsden, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council [2015] EWHC 98 (Admin) (07 January 2015)

Paragraph 7.2 of the Scheme does not confer discretion to admit applicants who do not meet residency criteria; the Scheme lawfully excludes such discretion; there is no statutory requirement to include a residual discretion for exceptional cases; the Council had regard to Ministerial Guidance and is not required to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 98 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sara Hillsden; Defendant: Epping Forest District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Allocations, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Fettering of Discretion, Ministerial Guidance
Administrative Law Housing Law Local Government Law Housing Allocations Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Fettering of Discretion Ministerial Guidance

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Hillsden

Claimant

Epping Forest District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does paragraph 7.2 of the Epping Forest District Council Housing Allocations Scheme confer discretion to admit applicants who do not meet residency criteria?
  2. 2 Is the Scheme unlawful for fettering statutory discretion or failing to include a residual discretion for exceptional cases?
  3. 3 Did the Council fail to have regard to Ministerial Guidance when adopting the Scheme?

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 7.2 of the Scheme does not confer discretion to admit applicants who do not meet residency criteria; the Scheme lawfully excludes such discretion; there is no statutory requirement to include a residual discretion for exceptional cases; the Council had regard to Ministerial Guidance and is not required to comply with it.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed