Morris, R (on the application of) v Westminster Ciry Council (2)

A judicial review claim may proceed after the claimant’s practical need for relief has ended where the issues remain important, the court can grant appropriate declaratory relief, and the case is a suitable vehicle for resolving them. The court must consider both the value of any relief to future decision-makers and whether the particular case provides an appropriate factual foundation. The parties’ readiness to argue the issues and expenditure already incurred do not justify continuing an otherwise academic dispute. Where the court determines the issues on the facts existing when the challenged decision was made, it is not deciding a case on hypothetical facts.

The claimant, a British citizen and sole carer of a dependent child, challenged Westminster City Council’s refusal to treat her as having a priority need for accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The Council had disregarded her daughter because the daughter was subject to immigration control.

In an earlier judgment, the court upheld the Council’s construction of section 185(4), but left outstanding issues concerning discrimination under articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, compatible construction under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and a possible declaration of incompatibility under section 4(2). The daughter was subsequently registered as a British citizen, and the claimant no longer needed public accommodation. The issue was whether the claim should nevertheless proceed.

1. The claim was permitted to proceed. The claimant no longer required practical relief, but the court retained a discretion to continue the proceedings where appropriate relief could still be granted and the case was a suitable vehicle for resolving issues of wider importance.
2. Applying R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex p. Quintavelle (1998) 10 Admin LR 425, the court treated the two relevant considerations as: first, whether any relief could appropriately be granted which would be valuable to those deciding similar matters; and secondly, whether the present application was an appropriate vehicle for providing guidance.
3. The first consideration focused on the relief available, not merely on whether the issues raised an illuminating legal debate. Declaratory relief concerning the construction or compatibility of section 185 of the Housing Act 1996 could still be appropriate, even though it would have no practical impact on the claimant.
4. The issues were not too fact-sensitive. They concerned the treatment of dependent children subject to immigration control, including overstayers, and had potentially significant implications for local authorities and others in a similar position. The court would decide the issues on the facts existing when the Council made its challenged decision, rather than on hypothetical facts.
5. The parties’ preparation for the hearing and the public funds already spent were not sufficient reasons for continuing an academic dispute. The court was fortified in its conclusion by the Council’s wish for the claim to proceed and the Secretary of State’s neutral stance.
6. The case was re-listed for hearing. Costs were left for agreement, subject to liberty to apply within 14 days.

The judgment followed an earlier hearing of the judicial review claim and an earlier judgment dated 13 October 2003, which had determined the statutory construction issue but left the human-rights and compatibility issues outstanding. This judgment decided that the claim should proceed to determination of those remaining issues.