| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2012] All ER (D) 114 (Jun) |
| Court: | Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London) |
| Judge: | Jeremy Stuart Smith QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court (judgment delivered extempore) |
| Representation | John McCafferty (instructed by Kingston and Richmond Law Centre) for the claimant. |
| Matt Hutchings (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for the authority. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 19 June 2012 |
Catchwords
Housing - Homeless person - Duty of housing authority to provide accommodation - Claimant applying to defendant local authority for re-housing - Claimant subsequently refusing offer of accommodation - Authority's having 'one offer only' policy - Application being cancelled and future applications deferred for two year period - Claimant subsequently making new application under homelessness provisions following change in circumstances - Authority finding application subject to deferral - Whether policy meaning application subject to deferral even when applicant homeless - Whether policy unlawful - Whether authority acting unlawfully - , .
The Case
Housing Homeless person. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that the defendant local housing authority had not acted unlawfully in dealing with the claimant's application for accommodation under the in circumstances where his earlier refusal of an offer of accommodation had resulted in any future applications being deferred for a period of two years, in accordance with the authority's policy.
Practice Areas
Lexis®Library
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases

