London Borough Of Islington v Gjini

Permission to appeal should be granted where a public authority’s subsistence policy appears confused and the adequacy and rationality of the resulting support raise an issue of considerable general importance. The court may examine whether the authority has identified and applied a coherent policy, including the relationship between cash support and ancillary benefits. Granting permission does not determine whether the policy is unlawful. The merits remain for consideration at the substantive appeal.

The applicant, an asylum seeker and single mother, sought judicial review of Islington’s decision to reduce her subsistence support by £15 per week after it discovered that she received child benefit. The reduction was accepted to be lawful under regulation 6(1)(a) of the Asylum Support Interim Provisions Regulations 1999.

Before Owen J, the remaining challenge concerned the rationality of Islington’s subsistence policy. The judge rejected an alleged policy based on 72 per cent of income support and found that the operative policy provided £3 per person per day for families, while single adults received £5 per day. He dismissed the challenge. The renewed application concerned whether there was a real issue about the rationality of that policy and the way the judge had approached it.

1. Permission granted. The application was a renewed application for permission to appeal from Owen J’s dismissal of the judicial review claim. Lord Justice Potter gave the substantive judgment, and Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed.
2. The judge below was entitled to find that the Council’s general policy was payment of £3 per person per day, rather than 72 per cent of income support. Relief based solely on the asserted 72 per cent policy would therefore have been futile or wrong.
3. That finding did not dispose of the wider question. The evidence disclosed substantial confusion within the Council about the policy said to govern its decisions. The apparent attempt to connect the £3 policy with a 72 per cent standard required consideration.
4. The cash figures appeared to place the applicant and her child near the bottom of the range adopted by London authorities. The court considered it arguable that the Council had not rationally justified the level of support, particularly when the value of accommodation, utility payments and other benefits was relied on to explain the differential between family and single-adult payments.
5. The issue satisfied rule 52.3(6), since it was a matter deserving consideration by the full court and appeared to have considerable general importance. The court expressed no final view on whether the policy was irrational or unlawful.

Order: application allowed. The appeal hearing was estimated to require one day. No order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, permission to appeal was granted. The court did not determine the substantive appeal.
• Queen’s Bench Division (Owen J): On 24 January 2002, the judicial review application and claim for a quashing order were dismissed.