Ekwuru v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster

Permission to appeal was granted because the case raised an arguable question about the remedy available after repeated defective homelessness reviews. The court confirmed that the local housing authority is ordinarily the primary fact-finding body and that a county court appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 is limited to points of law. It left open whether, after three defective reviews, section 204(3) permits the court to vary the underlying decision rather than simply quash and remit it. The relevance and remedy of the appellant’s Human Rights Act and Article 6 arguments also remained unresolved.

The appellant sought homelessness assistance after returning to the United Kingdom from Nigeria and finding that his former accommodation had been repossessed. The local authority accepted that he was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, but decided under section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 that he had become intentionally homeless.

His first review was conceded to be defective. A second review was later offered for quashing as defective. The appellant challenged a third review, which again upheld the intentional-homelessness decision. The county court quashed that review and contemplated a further review, holding that its role under section 204 was limited to points of law. The central issue was whether repeated defective reviews required the court to remit the matter again or exercise its power under section 204(3) to vary the decision, including in light of the appellant’s human-rights arguments.

1. Permission granted. The application raised an arguable issue concerning the proper procedure where a local housing authority had conducted, and accepted as defective, three successive reviews.
2. The Recorder was correct that the local housing authority is ordinarily the primary fact-finding body and that the county court’s function under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 is confined to points of law. That conclusion did not resolve the remedial question arising from repeated unlawful reviews.
3. Section 204(3) gives the court power to confirm, quash or vary the decision as it thinks fit. The Court of Appeal should consider whether, in these circumstances, it was sufficient simply to quash the third review and remit the matter for a fourth review, or whether the court should exercise its power to vary the underlying decision.
4. The appellant had relied on sections 3 and 11 of the Human Rights Act and alleged a breach of Article 6. The Recorder had referred to those matters but reached no clear conclusion. The effect of any human-rights breach and the appropriate remedy therefore required consideration on the appeal.

The judgment did not finally determine the remedial or human-rights issues. The appellant was advised to obtain legal assistance.

Order: Application for permission to appeal granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the order of Miss Recorder Davies QC at Central London County Court was granted.
• Central London County Court: The first review appeal was initially dismissed, but the decision was later set aside by consent after the authority conceded that the review was defective. A second review was then offered for quashing as defective. The third review was quashed, with a further review contemplated.
• Earlier procedural orders: An application concerning continued temporary accommodation was dismissed by Scott Baker J, and permission to appeal was refused by Tuckey LJ.