Jubarah v London Borough Of Hammersmith And Fulham

Permission to appeal should be granted where an important and unresolved point of statutory construction is suitable for consideration by a full court, even though the applicant’s proposed construction appears difficult. The court may also permit factual material to be relied on where it bears on the statutory issue, rather than treating it as a separate ground of appeal. The judgment did not determine the proper construction of section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996.

The applicant had been accommodated under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. After an offer of secure accommodation under Part VI, the housing authority treated the duty as terminated under section 193(7), following the applicant’s failure to view the accommodation within the period specified by the authority.

A review upheld that decision. His Honour Judge Cowell dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the review decision. The applicant sought permission for a second appeal, principally arguing that the authority could not notify her that its section 193 duty had ceased until 21 days after refusal of the offer. The central issue was whether that construction of section 193(7) was arguable and suitable for determination by a full court.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Rix granted permission to appeal on the notice of appeal, subject to the terms of his judgment. The proposed appeal concerned the construction of section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996, particularly the requirement that the authority notify the applicant within 21 days of refusal.
2. The court considered the proposed construction difficult. Nevertheless, the issue was an important point of principle or practice affecting homelessness applicants and housing authorities. It had received only limited consideration, and the first-instance appellate judge had apparently addressed a different construction from that advanced by the applicant.
3. The court noted that the relevant 21-day period ran from refusal, not from the making of the offer. It also recognised that the period for seeking a review under section 202 ran from notification of the authority’s decision, so the two time limits were not identical.
4. The second ground was not treated as an independent factual challenge to whether there had been a refusal. Following clarification, the applicant could rely on her later letter as factual material relevant to the construction argument and to whether she intended to refuse the accommodation.
5. The appeal was directed to be heard by a court of three, including at least two Lords Justice. A 14-day extension of time was allowed if required.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to bring a second appeal granted from the decision of His Honour Judge Cowell in the West London County Court, following a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
• West London County Court: the appeal from the housing authority’s review decision was dismissed; the judgment was given on 10 May 2002.