J v Chief Minister 16-Oct-2020 [2020] JRC 215 (16 October 2020)

J v Chief Minister 16-Oct-2020 [2020] JRC 215 (16 October 2020)

Condition 1, which excluded the Appellant from accessing the Affordable Housing Gateway, was unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose for which Entitled status was granted, namely to provide secure accommodation for his children. Condition 2 was inappropriately worded by linking the needs of both children and should be amended to consider their needs separately. Conditions 3, 4, and 5 were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2020] JRC 215
Parties
Appellant: J; Respondent: Chief Minister
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conditions Imposed on Grant of Entitled Status on Hardship Grounds
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Entitled Status on Hardship Grounds, Conditions on Residential Status, Access to Social Housing, Children's Welfare, Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Housing Law Family Law Entitled Status on Hardship Grounds Conditions on Residential Status Access to Social Housing Children's Welfare Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Appellant

Chief Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conditions Imposed on Grant of Entitled Status on Hardship Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions imposed on the grant of Entitled status on hardship grounds were reasonable in all the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether Condition 1 (exclusion from Affordable Housing Gateway) was consistent with the purpose of granting Entitled status
  3. 3 Whether Condition 2 improperly linked the needs of two children and failed to consider them separately

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 1, which excluded the Appellant from accessing the Affordable Housing Gateway, was unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose for which Entitled status was granted, namely to provide secure accommodation for his children. Condition 2 was inappropriately worded by linking the needs of both children and should be amended to consider their needs separately. Conditions 3, 4, and 5 were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Condition 1 (exclusion from Affordable Housing Gateway) is struck down.
  • Condition 2 is amended to reflect separate consideration of the children's needs, with liberty to the parties to agree precise terms or revert to the Court.