Miah v London Borough Of Newham

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the case raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for an appeal. Guidance stating that authorities may treat children aged 16–18 as dependent must be read in its ordinary sense as covering children throughout the period when they are aged 16, 17 and 18, including after the eighteenth birthday and before the nineteenth. The word “may” does not confer an uncontrolled discretion. Any decision must be rational and based on adequate investigation and reasons.

The claimant challenged a review decision by the London Borough of Newham that he was not in priority need for accommodation and that his daughter was not financially dependent upon him. The Central London County Court disagreed with the reviewing officer’s interpretation of paragraph 14.2 of the Code of Guidance on the Housing Act 1996, holding that “16–18” included children throughout the ages of 16, 17 and 18.

The defendant renewed its application for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed appeal satisfied the second-appeal threshold and whether the reviewing officer had lawfully approached the daughter’s dependency.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. Under [2000] CA 26 July, the proposed appeal would be a second appeal. Permission therefore required an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason, under CPR 52.13. No such ground was shown.

2. The Court agreed with the county court’s interpretation of paragraph 14.2 of the Code of Guidance. The reference to children aged “16–18” covered the period when a child was aged 16, 17 and 18. It did not end on the child’s eighteenth birthday.

3. The reviewing officer had approached dependency on the mistaken basis that the daughter’s eighteenth birthday was effectively decisive. The decision was consequently inadequately reasoned. Any decision about dependency had to address the relevant period, investigate the circumstances properly and give sufficiently comprehensive reasons.

4. The word “may” in the guidance did not create an uncontrolled discretion. The decision remained required to be rational. On the facts and the available information, the county court’s conclusion was almost certainly inevitable.

5. The defendant’s reliance on R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough Council ex parte Amarfio was unavailing. That case concerned a sixteen-year-old child and could not have addressed the critical question concerning an eighteen-year-old.

The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the renewed application for permission to appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Bradbury in the Central London County Court.