Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

This appeal concerned the meaning and application of the statutory test of "good reason" in section 204(2A) of the Housing Act 1996 for allowing an appeal out of time against an adverse homelessness review decision. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory phrase "good reason" must be assessed by reference to all the circumstances of the case and that the stricter Mitchell/Denton approach to relief from procedural sanctions should not be read across to limit what may qualify as a "good reason" under s.204(2A). The court concluded that the county court judge (HHJ Hellman) had reached a permissible evaluative judgment in finding that the appellant's lack of representation and his reasonably awaiting legal assistance from Crisis and from solicitors amounted to a good reason for delay. The Court of Appeal therefore reinstated the county court order granting permission to appeal out of time.

Background and procedural posture.

The appellant, Mr Al Ahmed, applied to the local authority under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996. The authority decided he was not in priority need and a review upheld that decision (review notified in early April 2018). An appeal under s.204 had to be brought within 21 days but an appellant's notice with an application for permission out of time was lodged on 25 May 2018. The appellant relied on delay caused by being unrepresented, the search for legal aid/representation and assistance from the charity Crisis.

Relief sought and issues.

• Nature of the application: permission to bring an appeal out of time under s.204(2A) Housing Act 1996; substantive grounds alleged included breach of regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 and failure to comply with the duty of inquiry under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
• Issues framed by the courts: whether there was a "good reason" within s.204(2A)(b) for (i) the appellant's failure to bring the appeal within 21 days and (ii) any delay in applying for permission; and whether the county court judge misapplied the law by taking the appellant's unrepresented status and search for legal aid into account.

Lower courts. HHJ Hellman (County Court) found that the appellant had a good reason for delay because he reasonably relied on Crisis to obtain legal assistance and, given his practical limitations, had no useful purpose in filing an appeal until he had legal representation. The council appealed and Dove J (Administrative Court) allowed the appeal, holding that the mere fact of being unrepresented or seeking legal aid could not ordinarily amount to a good reason, and he relied on Hysaj and Kigen and the Mitchell/Denton approach to time limits.

Court of Appeal reasoning and result. The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal and reinstated HHJ Hellman's order. The court held (i) s.204(2A) prescribes a statutory "good reason" test that must be applied by reference to all circumstances and should not be qualified by importing the Mitchell/Denton principles applicable to relief from sanctions under the Civil Procedure Rules; (ii) evidence about the practical difficulties faced by homeless applicants in obtaining representation and pursuing appeals (as highlighted by the intervener Shelter) may properly be taken into account when assessing "good reason"; and (iii) HHJ Hellman's factual and evaluative findings — that the appellant sensibly relied on Crisis and sought legal representation, and that without representation the appeal was unlikely to progress — were open on the evidence and should not have been displaced by Dove J. The Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the county court's order granting permission to appeal out of time.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory test of "good reason" in section 204(2A) of the Housing Act 1996 must be applied by reference to all the circumstances of the particular case and should not be restricted by the Mitchell/Denton approach to procedural sanctions. The court found that HHJ Hellman’s factual and evaluative findings that the appellant’s lack of representation and reasonable reliance on Crisis and on obtaining legal aid amounted to a good reason for delay were open on the evidence and should be reinstated.

County Court at Central London (HHJ Hellman): permission to appeal out of time granted. High Court (Administrative Court, Dove J) [2019] EWHC 749 (QB): appeal by the council allowed and permission refused. Court of Appeal (this judgment) [2020] EWCA Civ 51: appeal allowed and HHJ Hellman's order reinstated. Permission for the second appeal was granted by Males LJ.