Gil v London Borough of Camden

An appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 must be brought within 21 days of notification of the review decision. An extension is available only where the appellant establishes a good reason both for missing the deadline and for any delay in seeking permission. The burden lies on the appellant, who should make the application in the Appellant’s Notice and support it with evidence. A decision to proceed in an appellant’s absence is a case-management decision. An appeal court should not interfere unless the judge applied incorrect principles or the decision falls outside the generous ambit of discretion.

The claimant appealed to the Central London County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the defendant local authority’s review decision concerning her homelessness application. The review decision was notified on 26 April 2016. The County Court dismissed the appeal on 2 August 2017, holding that it had been filed out of time and that the court had no jurisdiction because no application for permission to appeal out of time had been made.

The claimant sought permission to appeal and an extension of time. She also challenged the County Court’s decision to proceed in her absence. The central issues were whether the appeal had been lodged in time, whether there was a good reason for the delay, and whether the absence decision was plainly wrong.

1. Permission dismissed. The appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard under CPR Part 52.6.
2. Notification of the review decision occurred on 26 April 2016. Applying Dharmaraj v Hounslow LBC [2011] P.T.S.R. 1523, the authority was entitled to notify the applicant’s authorised solicitors. The 21-day period therefore expired on 17 May 2016.
3. Even on the claimant’s evidence, the Appellant’s Notice was filed no earlier than 18 May 2016. It was accordingly out of time. Section 204(2A)(b) required the court to be satisfied that there was a good reason both for failing to appeal in time and for delay in applying for permission. The claimant had made no application to the County Court and supplied no evidence establishing either limb. The recorder therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. The requirement to consider both limbs was supported by Poorsalely v Wandsworth LBC [2013] EWHC 3687 (QB). The claimant had also been alerted to the time issue before the County Court hearing and had taken no steps to address it.
5. The decision to proceed in the claimant’s absence was a case-management decision. Applying Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc v T&N Ltd (In Administration) [2002] EWCA Civ 1964; [2003] P.I.Q.R. P26, the appeal court should not interfere unless the decision was plainly wrong and outside the generous ambit of discretion. The evidence did not establish that threshold.
6. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court deferred any order for costs to allow the claimant to respond.

• Central London County Court: On 2 August 2017, Mrs Recorder Jones dismissed the section 204 appeal because it was out of time and the court had no jurisdiction to hear it.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Permission to appeal was dismissed. The County Court’s decision was upheld in substance.