Malaga-Cano v Royal Borough Of Kensington & Chelsea

Judicial review is not an ad hoc running appeal from a local authority’s housing decisions. The High Court may intervene only where there is a demonstrable error of law in the authority’s approach. Where proceedings were brought to obtain a statutory housing assessment under the Housing Act 1996, and the authority has made that assessment, continuing dissatisfaction with detailed housing arrangements should ordinarily be addressed through negotiation or a fresh challenge. In the absence of an arguable error of law, there is no basis for permission to seek judicial review.

The claimant, who had longstanding housing and health difficulties, applied to the local authority under section 183 of the Housing Act 1996 as a potentially homeless person. She commenced judicial review proceedings seeking an assessment under section 184, interim relief and consideration of whether she was in priority need.

While the proceedings were pending, the authority accepted that she was eligible, homeless and in priority need. It made an assessment and addressed the type and location of accommodation available. Mr Justice Newman refused permission on 20 December 2001, finding that the authority had discharged its statutory duties. The central issue was whether there was an arguable error of law justifying permission to proceed.

Lord Justice Kennedy dismissed the application for permission to appeal. The refusal of permission to apply for judicial review was upheld.

1. Purpose of the proceedings. The proceedings had been initiated to obtain an assessment of the claimant’s housing position under the Housing Act 1996. The local authority had subsequently accepted responsibility towards her, recognised homelessness and priority need, and made an assessment addressing the accommodation issues raised. The remaining disputes about detail were matters for negotiation or, if necessary, a new challenge based on a new matter or ground.
2. Scope of judicial review. Judicial review does not operate as an ad hoc running appeal from local authority decisions in housing matters. The court may intervene only where the authority has made a demonstrable error of law in its approach.
3. Application to the case. The authority had discharged its relevant statutory duties. The court found no evidence of any arguable error of law and therefore no basis for granting permission to seek judicial review. Mr Justice Newman’s approach disclosed no error.

Order: Application dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Kennedy dismissed the claimant’s application for permission to appeal and refused permission to proceed with judicial review.
2. First instance: Mr Justice Newman refused permission to apply for judicial review on 20 December 2001, holding that the local authority had discharged its statutory duties.