M, R (on the application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

Section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 is not a general safety net for anyone without money or accommodation. The applicant must need care and attention which is not otherwise available.

However, destitution and lack of accommodation may form part of circumstances which produce that need. For asylum seekers, language difficulties, unfamiliarity with the country, asylum-related stress and the passage of time may cause them to qualify. Local authorities may anticipate deterioration and need not wait until illness or disability has occurred.

The phrase “any other circumstances” is not confined by ejusdem generis to age, illness or disability.

Four asylum seekers challenged refusals by Westminster City Council, Lambeth London Borough Council and Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council to provide accommodation. Collins J made orders of certiorari quashing the refusals.

The local authorities and the Secretary of State appealed. The asylum seekers could not be removed or required to leave while their asylum claims were pending under section 6 of the Asylum Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Following the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, they were excluded from public housing assistance and social security benefits, and could not work under their terms of entry.

The central issue was whether their circumstances could engage section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948.

Lord Woolf MR delivered the judgment of the Court. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Scope of section 21(1)(a). The provision is not a general residual entitlement for every person who lacks money or accommodation. It requires a need for care and attention which is not otherwise available. A need for food, shelter or money may contribute to that condition, but it does not automatically establish it.
2. Construction of “any other circumstances”. The words are not confined by ejusdem generis to age, illness or disability. The statutory purpose is the primary guide. External conditions may produce illness, disability or another need for care and attention. The Court relied on the approach stated in Rands v Oldroyd and Quazi v Quazi.
3. Asylum seekers. The exclusion of late-claiming asylum seekers from other welfare and housing provisions did not itself create an entitlement under section 21(1)(a). Nevertheless, destitution combined with inability to speak the language, ignorance of the country, asylum-related stress and the passage of time could bring an asylum seeker within the subsection. The local authority had to decide whether the individual qualified. It could anticipate deterioration and did not have to wait until the applicant’s health had been damaged.
4. Statutory overlap and directions. The legislative schemes addressing financial need, care and attention, and accommodation were distinct, but could overlap. The 1996 legislation left section 21 unaffected. The non-duplication provision in section 21(8) could not be relied upon where the other relevant forms of assistance were no longer available. The Secretary of State’s directions could not alter the meaning of section 21, but were valid and useful guidance on its application.

The appeal was dismissed. The Secretary of State and the relevant local authority were each ordered to pay 50 per cent of the respondents’ costs in the relevant case. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office List). Collins J made orders of certiorari quashing the local authorities’ refusals to provide accommodation.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeals were heard with leave and dismissed. The Court held that section 21(1)(a) could apply to some asylum seekers, but was not a general entitlement for persons merely lacking money or accommodation.