Brown v Hamilton District Council

The Court of Session has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction in Scotland to review decisions of local authorities and other administrative bodies. This rule applies whether the impugned decision is administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. The extension of the Sheriff Court’s jurisdiction to actions of declarator did not confer a supervisory jurisdiction upon it.

Where a statutory decision determines the authority’s ensuing duties, a declarator that the authority was not entitled to reach it cannot leave the decision standing. Reduction is required, and the Sheriff Court lacks general jurisdiction to grant that remedy. Pending a homelessness decision, an authority need not investigate the adequacy of an applicant’s existing temporary accommodation unless inadequacy is alleged or otherwise apparent.

A housing authority decided under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 that the respondent was homeless and in priority need but had become homeless intentionally. He challenged that decision in Hamilton Sheriff Court, seeking declarator, orders requiring accommodation and damages.

The sheriff held that the action was competent. A majority of the Second Division of the Court of Session agreed that the Sheriff Court could review the administrative decision and allowed a proof before answer on limited issues. Lord Dunpark dissented.

The authority appealed to the House of Lords and the respondent cross-appealed on the adverse relevancy rulings. The central questions were whether supervisory review of an administrative decision was competent in the Sheriff Court and, if so, whether the respondent had relevantly pleaded his challenges and claims for damages.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously; action dismissed. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton delivered the leading speech. Lord Diplock, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Brightman agreed with his reasoning and the proposed order. The respondent’s cross-appeal consequently failed.

2. Per Lord Fraser, the Court of Session’s supervisory jurisdiction extends to decisions of public officers and administrative bodies such as local authorities. It is exclusive to that court. No material distinction arises for this purpose between administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. The decision under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 therefore could not be reviewed by the Sheriff Court.

3. The grant of jurisdiction in actions of declarator by section 5(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 enlarged the forms of procedure available in the Sheriff Court. It did not impliedly confer a new supervisory jurisdiction formerly exclusive to the Court of Session.

4. There was a separate defect in competency. The statutory decision conclusively determined which duties the authority owed under section 4 of the 1977 Act. A declarator that the authority had not been entitled to reach that decision would neither remove it nor permit a different decision to be made. Reduction was required, but the Sheriff Court had no general jurisdiction to grant reduction.

5. On the alternative assumption that the action was competent, the pleadings were also irrelevant. Under section 3(4), an authority may treat its interim duty as discharged where an applicant reports that he is occupying temporary accommodation, makes no complaint of inadequacy and provides no information suggesting that it is inadequate. Although temporary accommodation must be reasonable, it may fall below the standard appropriate for permanent accommodation.

6. The alleged procedural unfairness was also irrelevant. The respondent had completed forms and discussed his circumstances with an official, so he had an opportunity to provide explanations. His proposed explanations did not negate the deliberate failure to apply his rent allowance to rent. Under section 17, that failure need only have been one cause of the loss of accommodation. The good-faith provision concerned unawareness of a relevant fact, whereas the asserted mistake concerned liability in law.

1. House of Lords: The authority’s appeal was allowed unanimously. The respondent’s cross-appeal failed, and the action was dismissed.
2. Second Division of the Court of Session: By a majority, the court held the amended action competent in the Sheriff Court and allowed a proof before answer on limited issues. Lord Dunpark dissented.
3. Hamilton Sheriff Court: The sheriff repelled the authority’s pleas concerning competency and jurisdiction and granted leave to appeal.