Campbell v London Borough Of Richmond

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Disputes about the suitability of accommodation which turn on the particular facts will generally not satisfy that threshold. The housing authority remains primarily responsible for deciding on review whether accommodation is suitable. The reviewing court asks whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable council would have made it.

The claimant sought permission for a second appeal from a decision of Wandsworth County Court, given by Mr Recorder Elvidge. The recorder had quashed a local housing authority’s review decision on procedural grounds because the reviewer had been involved in securing the accommodation. He nevertheless considered the merits and concluded that, if the procedure had been secure, the decision could not be challenged for legal unreasonableness.

The proposed appeal concerned the suitability of accommodation in relation to nursery provision, the absence of space for a washing machine and possibly a tumble drier, and the safety and suitability of a front garden. The central issue was whether there was a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the second appeal.

1. Application dismissed. There was no compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the proposed second appeal. No order for costs was made.
2. The applicable permission threshold was that stated in Azimi v London Borough of Newham [2001] 33 HLR 569: a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
3. The claimant’s complaints about nursery services, washing and drying facilities, and the garden were matters of fact rather than matters of law. They did not raise an important point of principle or practice.
4. The legal question identified by the recorder was whether the accommodation was so unreasonable that no reasonable council would have offered it. Although the accommodation was not ideal, it was primarily for the council to decide on review whether it was suitable. The recorder had carefully considered the review and there was no realistic prospect that the Court of Appeal would take a different view.

• Wandsworth County Court: Mr Recorder Elvidge quashed the review decision on procedural grounds because the reviewer had been involved in securing the accommodation. He also expressed the view that, if procedurally secure, the decision disclosed no error of law.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission for a second appeal was dismissed. No order for costs was made.