QH v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When deciding an urgent application for interim relief requiring accommodation, the court must assess whether there is a strongly arguable case and then determine the balance of justice in the particular circumstances. A vulnerable person and a newborn child may require immediate, stable and suitable accommodation where the existing accommodation is unsuitable and remedial steps have not been taken despite repeated opportunities. Resource constraints and the possible effect on other applicants are relevant, but general assertions that others are worse off cannot by themselves defeat relief. The court may require decisive action while allowing a proportionate period for compliance.

The claimant, a recognised victim of trafficking who had recently undergone a Caesarean section and given birth, was accommodated under asylum-support arrangements. After a series of moves between accommodation and hotels, she and her newborn child were placed in a room at Stamford Close which was said to contain, among other matters, unsuitable beds, a broken fridge and wardrobe, and a boiler near the sleeping area.

She sought urgent interim relief requiring the Secretary of State to provide suitable single-occupancy accommodation in London. The Secretary of State resisted relief, arguing that the problems could be remedied at the premises, that there was no obligation to provide the best possible accommodation, and that a hotel room would be an adequate interim solution.

1. Interim relief granted. The Secretary of State was ordered to provide the claimant and her newborn child with suitable single-occupancy accommodation in London by 2 pm on 9 October 2020.
2. The court was deciding interim relief only. The claimant had a strongly arguable case that the Secretary of State was not discharging an applicable legal duty to provide suitable accommodation to a vulnerable new mother and her young baby.
3. Suitability had to be assessed in the factual context, including the claimant’s vulnerability, her recent major surgery, her newborn child, the history of repeated moves and uncertainty, and the evidence concerning the present room. The court was not required to determine every disputed factual allegation, including whether the window was broken.
4. The contention that defects could be remedied while the claimant remained in the room did not provide an adequate answer. There had been ample earlier opportunities to identify suitable accommodation and to remedy the problems, but no contemporaneous assessment of suitability had been produced.
5. The court recognised the importance of respecting public authorities’ expertise, wider responsibilities and finite resources. However, a general assertion that other people were in a worse position could not determine the application. The court had to decide the individual case on the evidence before it, while allowing a proportionate period for compliance.
6. The claimant was awarded the costs of the interim-relief application. The costs were not ordered on the indemnity basis.

First-instance application for urgent interim relief in judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.