AB v Leicester City Council

An appellate court may adjourn a homelessness appeal where there are serious concerns that the litigant may not understand or conduct the litigation in her own best interests, may require a litigation friend, and the appeal may not produce a useful resolution of the underlying housing problem. The court may allow time for the solicitor to meet the litigant, clarify instructions and consider representation. It may also reserve consideration of whether the Official Solicitor should act as litigation friend. Proper regard may be had to the use of publicly funded legal representation and public resources. An unsuccessful homelessness application does not necessarily prevent a further application based on additional information.

This was an appeal by AB from an order of Leicester County Court dismissing her appeal against a review decision that she was not eligible for homelessness assistance from Leicester City Council. AB had provided little information about her identity, background or circumstances and had not authorised inquiries. Medical reports suggested possible domestic abuse or post-traumatic stress disorder. Her solicitor and counsel had never met her. The Court of Appeal was concerned about the nature of her instructions, whether she might require a litigation friend, and whether the appeal would serve a useful purpose. The immediate issue was whether the hearing should be adjourned to clarify her position and representation.

Lord Justice Mummery gave judgment, with which Lord Justices Lawrence Collins and Rimer agreed.

1. Disposition. The matter was adjourned for two months and ordered to be restored as soon as possible thereafter. The appeal was not determined on its merits. The formal order was application adjourned.
2. Reason for adjournment. The court considered that AB was not presently managing the litigation in a sufficiently rational or informed way and might not have understood the consequences of the proceedings. It was not satisfied that success on the appeal would resolve her housing difficulties. The court also took account of the expenditure of legal aid and public funds while the utility of the appeal remained uncertain.
3. Litigation friend and instructions. The court wished AB’s solicitor to meet her personally, explain the position and the court’s concern about a litigation friend, and report her instructions promptly. The court reserved the right, if the matter returned, to invite the Official Solicitor to consider acting as litigation friend.
4. Further application. The court noted that dismissal of the present homelessness application would not prevent AB from making a further application supported by information that she was able to provide.

The solicitor’s report was to be made as soon as possible and was not to await expiry of the two-month period.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In [2009] EWCA Civ 192, the court adjourned the application for two months and gave directions concerning AB’s instructions and possible litigation-friend representation.
• Leicester County Court. On 9 June 2008, HHJ Metcalfe dismissed AB’s appeal against the homelessness review decision.
• Leicester City Council review. On 16 January 2008, the council decided that AB was not eligible for homelessness assistance.