Abdullah v City of Westminster

On an appeal concerning a housing authority’s review decision, the court’s task is supervisory. The court may intervene where the decision is legally flawed, irrational, unsupported by evidence, plainly untenable, or based on a misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact. A fresh review following a successful appeal must reconsider the matter afresh. The reviewing officer must take account of the earlier judgment, but need not treat factual findings or observations in that judgment as binding unless the judgment actually made such findings within the court’s function. The court must assess the review letter fairly and as a whole. Imperfect reasoning, repetition, or an unfair summary of evidence does not necessarily invalidate the decision if the officer understood the real issue and the conclusion remained open on the material before him.

The appellant, a refugee from Yemen with children and physical and mental health difficulties, sought accommodation in Westminster, where she said that family and friends could provide essential daily support. Westminster had offered accommodation in Barking. An earlier review decision was quashed on appeal by HHJ Collins because it had failed to address the asserted need for accommodation in Westminster.

The housing review officer conducted a second review and concluded that accommodation in Barking was suitable. HHJ Harris dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the second review had properly addressed the alleged need and whether its conclusion was legally sustainable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The second review was upheld, although the court considered the review letter unsatisfactory in several respects and reached its conclusion only narrowly.
2. The county court’s jurisdiction under section 204(3) is appellate in form but, in substance, equivalent to judicial review. The court may quash a decision for legal misdirection, procedural impropriety, unfairness, bias, bad faith, irrationality, absence of evidential support, plainly untenable factual findings, or misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact, applying the principles summarised in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets and Nipa Begum v Tower Hamlets.
3. HHJ Collins’ earlier decision did not bind the second reviewing officer on the existence of need. It directed attention to the issue that had been advanced but did not make findings of fact, nor could it have been the judge’s function to do so. The second review therefore had to be a fresh review. The officer had to respect and take account of the earlier judgment, but was not required to defer to it or give it a special weight that displaced the ordinary review process.
4. The reviewing officer’s account of the earlier judgment and the appellant’s move from Barnet was inaccurate and understated the support for the move. The officer also gave thin reasons for discounting the evidence of family and friends, and the medical material was not entirely fairly summarised. Nevertheless, the review letter, read fairly and as a whole, showed that the officer understood the real case: whether the appellant needed to live in or near Westminster in order to cope with life and care for her children.
5. The evidence permitted the conclusion that Westminster accommodation would be much better and advantageous, but did not compel the conclusion that the appellant could not cope without it. The court was concerned with whether the decision was legally sustainable, not with substituting its own view about the housing placement. The conclusion that Barking remained suitable was therefore open to the reviewing officer, and HHJ Harris had been entitled to uphold it. Lord Justice Wilson agreed in substance, while considering the reasoning particularly unsatisfactory. Lady Justice Arden placed greater emphasis on the officer’s entitlement to assess the weight of the supporting letters and agreed with the dismissal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from HHJ Harris’s decision of 19 October 2006.
• Central London Civic Justice Centre: HHJ Harris upheld Westminster’s second housing review decision of 25 April 2006.
• Earlier county court appeal: HHJ Collins had quashed an earlier review decision and directed a fresh review addressing the asserted need for accommodation in Westminster.