Gilby v City of Westminster [2007] EWCA Civ 604 (27 June 2007)

Gilby v City of Westminster [2007] EWCA Civ 604 (27 June 2007)

The appellant's occupation of the flat, whether as an unlawful subtenant or bare licensee, was too precarious to constitute settled accommodation and did not break the chain of intentional homelessness; the difference in reasoning between the original and review decisions was not significant enough to trigger Regulation 8.2, and there was no procedural deficiency or irregularity.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 604
Parties
Appellant: Michelle Gilby; Respondents: The Lord Mayor & Citizens of the City of Westminster
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Settled Accommodation, Review Procedures, Regulation 8.2, Homelessness Assistance
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Settled Accommodation Review Procedures Regulation 8.2 Homelessness Assistance

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Gilby

Appellant

The Lord Mayor & Citizens of the City of Westminster

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's occupation of the flat constituted 'settled accommodation' breaking the chain of intentional homelessness under the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision triggered Regulation 8.2 of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's occupation of the flat, whether as an unlawful subtenant or bare licensee, was too precarious to constitute settled accommodation and did not break the chain of intentional homelessness; the difference in reasoning between the original and review decisions was not significant enough to trigger Regulation 8.2, and there was no procedural deficiency or irregularity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed