Houghton v Sheffield City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1799 (07 December 2006)

Houghton v Sheffield City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1799 (07 December 2006)

The judge was entitled to find that the respondent had cooperated with the housing benefit department, as evidenced by payments made, and that the decision to find him intentionally homeless when there were virtually no arrears was perverse. The case turned on its own facts and did not raise a point of principle or practice justifying a second appeal.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1799
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Houghton; Defendant/respondent: Sheffield City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Housing Benefit, Local Authority Duties, Judicial Review, Appeals Process
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Housing Benefit Local Authority Duties Judicial Review Appeals Process

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Houghton

Claimant/appellant

Sheffield City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was intentionally homeless under section 191 of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the county court judge erred in finding the local authority's decision perverse
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have varied or remitted the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the respondent had cooperated with the housing benefit department, as evidenced by payments made, and that the decision to find him intentionally homeless when there were virtually no arrears was perverse. The case turned on its own facts and did not raise a point of principle or practice justifying a second appeal.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application refused