Swindells, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich

In reviewing a decision to terminate an introductory tenancy, the court asks whether the statutory decision-making process afforded a fair opportunity to make representations, whether the relevant issues were fairly considered, and whether the decision was sufficiently explained. Judicial review does not permit the court to determine the merits of the underlying nuisance dispute or substitute its assessment of the evidence for that of the council’s panel. Where the panel had the relevant allegations and evidence before it, considered the issues, and reached a conclusion open to it, the decision will not be unlawful merely because the claimant disputes the factual evaluation.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Greenwich’s decision to uphold a notice seeking possession of her introductory tenancy on the ground of noise nuisance. Permission had been granted on the issue whether the council’s earlier review decision gave adequate reasons. The council subsequently invited the claimant and her son to a further hearing, supplied the relevant evidence, and reviewed the matter before a panel. The claimant did not attend or provide an evidential response. The central issues were whether she had a fair opportunity to present her case, whether the panel fairly considered the allegations and evidence, and whether its decision was sufficiently reasoned.

1. Application dismissed. The council’s decision to uphold the notice seeking possession was lawful, and the possession proceedings could proceed.
2. Fairness was required because the statutory scheme made possession effectively mandatory if the council decided to proceed. The claimant nevertheless had a fair opportunity to make representations. The allegations were known to her, she had been invited to the original and further hearings, the relevant material was supplied, and she had not produced evidence establishing that she was unaware of the further review.
3. The court was not entitled to determine the merits of the dispute between the claimant, her neighbours and the council’s officers. The panel was the body required to evaluate the facts. Its conclusion was open to it on the evidence, including the environmental health officer’s personal observations and the evidence concerning the abatement order.
4. The relevant judicial review questions were whether there had been (a) a fair hearing, (b) fair consideration of the issues, and (c) a sufficiently explained decision. Each question was answered affirmatively. The panel had considered the issues required of it and reached a decision it was entitled to reach according to law.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of £3,313.50 inclusive of VAT within 28 days, with enforcement without further order of the court and subject to detailed assessment.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission had been granted by Holman J, and the matter was reheard de novo after the judge vacated an earlier judgment given in the claimant’s absence.