Morris, R (on the application of) v Westminster Ciry Council (2)

Morris, R (on the application of) v Westminster Ciry Council (2)

Despite the claimant no longer needing a remedy, the claim should proceed because the issues are important, factually grounded, and the development of the law would be enhanced by a ruling. Relief sought is appropriate for the claimant, and neither respondent nor interested party objected to continuation.

Parties
Claimant: Sylviane Pierrette Morris; Defendant: Westminster City Council; Interested Party: First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Judgment on Whether Claim Should Proceed
Outcome
Claim permitted to proceed; case to be re-listed for hearing.
Legal Topics
Priority Need for Accommodation, Immigration Control, Discrimination Under ECHR, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Housing Law Priority Need for Accommodation Immigration Control Discrimination Under ECHR Judicial Review Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylviane Pierrette Morris

Claimant

Westminster City Council

Defendant

First Secretary of State

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Judgment on Whether Claim Should Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a homeless person with a dependent child subject to immigration control has priority need for accommodation under Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should continue when the claimant no longer needs a remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the claimant no longer needing a remedy, the claim should proceed because the issues are important, factually grounded, and the development of the law would be enhanced by a ruling. Relief sought is appropriate for the claimant, and neither respondent nor interested party objected to continuation.

Court Disposition

Claim permitted to proceed; case to be re-listed for hearing.

Orders

  • Parties to attempt to agree costs order; costs to be in the case if agreed.
  • Liberty to apply for permission to appeal or costs order within 14 days; applications to be considered without a hearing.