Savage v London Borough of Hillingdon

The judicial review claim succeeded on the issue of fettering. The local authority’s policy was not unlawfully challenged in the broader terms advanced, but its application was found to have involved an impermissible fetter. The court declined to grant permission to appeal because there was neither a reasonable prospect of success nor another compelling reason for an appeal.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against the London Borough of Hillingdon. Five issues were canvassed, including the alleged fettering of the authority’s discretion, a broader challenge to its policy, jurisdictional issues and delay. The claim succeeded on the fettering point only. The court did not determine the jurisdiction point, and the delay issue produced no decisive result. The claimant also sought permission to appeal, referring to the importance of the issues and to duties said to arise under section 190 of the Housing Act; that application was made after judgment had been delivered.

1. Disposition. The claim succeeded on the fettering point. The claimant did not succeed on the broader policy issue. The jurisdiction issues were not determined, and the delay issue did not produce a decisive result.

2. The supplied text records the court’s operative conclusion that the authority had unlawfully fettered its discretion in applying its policy. The detailed reasons for that conclusion are not reproduced in the supplied judgment text.

3. The defendant was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the claimant’s costs. Although the claimant succeeded on only one point, the hearing would have been necessary even if that point had been the sole issue pursued.

4. Permission for the claimant to appeal was refused. The court considered that the issues were sufficiently clear and that there was neither a reasonable prospect of success nor another compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.

5. A detailed public funding assessment was ordered.