London Borough Of Newham v Austin

Permission for a second appeal may be granted where the proposed appeal raises a point of principle of general importance. In housing cases, that may include the proper approach of a local housing authority to brief general-practitioner medical evidence concerning the suitability of offered accommodation, particularly where the asserted condition may have psychiatric implications. The court may also consider whether a further appeal serves the public interest under Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55.

The London Borough of Newham sought permission to appeal, and an extension of time, from an order of the Bow County Court allowing Stacey Austin’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The county court had criticised the authority’s review decision that it owed no further housing duty because Ms Austin had refused allegedly suitable accommodation.

The proposed appeal concerned whether the reviewing officer had failed to consider material medical evidence about Ms Austin’s fear of heights, vertigo or dizziness, and depression, or had failed to give adequate reasons. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed appeal raised a point of principle of general importance.

1. Permission and extension. The application for permission to appeal and the extension of time were granted.
2. General public importance. The proposed appeal raised an arguable issue concerning the extent to which a local housing authority may rely on brief reports from busy general practitioners when assessing the suitability of accommodation. The issue was particularly significant where the asserted difficulty, such as fear of heights, might have psychiatric implications.
3. Medical evidence. It was arguable that the county court judge had treated brief general-practitioner notes as the plainest possible expert medical opinion, despite the absence of evidence from the relevant specialist and the absence of psychiatric evidence. The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive merits at this stage.
4. Second appeal and public interest. Although a further review would be required rather than an immediately conclusive outcome, the applicant had demonstrated a point of principle capable of satisfying the public-interest requirement under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
5. The court noted that R v The London Borough of Brent, ex p Omar (1991) 23 HLR 446 concerned truly exceptional facts. Guidance from the full court might therefore be appropriate for less exceptional cases.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal and an extension of time were granted.
• Bow County Court: His Honour Judge Laurie allowed Ms Austin’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against Newham’s review decision.
• Review decision: Newham decided that it owed no further duty to accommodate Ms Austin under sections 193(5) and 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996, following her refusal of offered accommodation.