Daie, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden

A judicial review claim may be dismissed where subsequent events have removed any practical issue for determination and the claim has become wholly academic. The court may do so without deciding whether the challenged decision was lawful, particularly where the claimant has received a later decision addressing the substance of the housing application and continuing accommodation. Wider complaints fall outside the claim where they were not covered by the permission granted.

The claimant challenged the defendant local authority’s decision of 6 October 2004 refusing to accept a further homelessness application and cancelling his temporary accommodation. The proceedings concerned the adequacy of the decision letter under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996.

During the proceedings, the claimant was evicted from his former accommodation. The authority then agreed to consider a homelessness application and, on 20 February 2006, accepted that it owed him the full housing duty under section 193. The claimant remained in temporary accommodation. He sought an adjournment to obtain advice, but the authority argued that the claim had become academic.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed because the decision challenged, made on 6 October 2004, had been overtaken by events and the claim had become wholly academic. The court did not decide that the claimant’s challenge was bound to fail.
2. The claimant had remained in temporary accommodation, and the authority had subsequently agreed to consider his homelessness application. It had then made a positive decision accepting the full housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, identifying his existing accommodation as the premises available for his current accommodation and explaining how the duty would be discharged.
3. In those circumstances, further expenditure of public money by the authority or the court would serve no useful purpose. The appropriate course was dismissal, particularly as the claimant did not wish to withdraw the proceedings.
4. The claimant’s wider complaints concerning the authority’s housing functions did not form part of the judicial review claim. They were outside the narrow grounds on which the Court of Appeal had granted permission.
5. The interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal automatically fell away because it had been overtaken by the authority’s later decision of 20 February 2006.

1. Court of Appeal — On 31 March 2005, permission to seek judicial review was granted on the narrow issue concerning the adequacy of the authority’s response, following London Borough Tower Hamlets v Rikha Begum [2005] EWCA Civ 340. Interim relief was also granted.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) — The claim was dismissed as wholly academic because subsequent events had overtaken the challenged decision.