Ejowhokoghene Ubiribo v Notting Hill Genesis

At the pre-claim stage, the court may consider interim relief in proposed judicial review proceedings. The absence of an issued claim is not a jurisdictional bar, but it is a relevant consideration. A mandatory order should not ordinarily be made where, in practical effect, it would determine the substantive dispute before the claim has been formulated and both parties have presented their evidence and legal positions. The court should instead obtain a crystallised claim and response, consider all available remedies and, where appropriate, direct a rolled-up hearing. Interim relief will be refused where the court cannot yet be satisfied that the criteria for the proposed mandatory remedy are met.

The claimant, a tenant of a registered provider of social housing, sought urgent pre-claim interim relief in contemplation of judicial review. She challenged the retention of her housing allocation band and sought relief concerning accommodation affected by alleged damp and mould, including an order preventing the allocation of particular premises or requiring alternative accommodation.

The premises identified in the application had already been let. The court therefore considered whether alternative interim relief should be ordered before the judicial review claim was issued, and gave directions for formulation of the proposed claim, the defendant’s response and subsequent paper consideration.

1. Interim relief before issue. Interim relief may properly be considered before a judicial review claim is issued. That procedural stage is not a jurisdictional bar, but it is a relevant feature of the court’s assessment.
2. Mandatory relief. An order requiring alternative accommodation would, in practice, risk disposing of the substantive issue whether the claimant and her children could lawfully remain in the existing accommodation. The court therefore required a substantive claim, a crystallised position on both sides and consideration of the materials belatedly disclosed to the claimant.
3. Alternative remedies. The court was not satisfied that the criteria for an interim mandatory remedy requiring rehousing action were met. It was also inappropriate at that stage to impose a new alternative order requiring accommodation or a higher allocation band.
4. Public law issues reserved. The defendant’s status as a private registered provider of social housing, the possible application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, the susceptibility of allocation decisions to judicial review, and the availability of alternative remedies required further consideration. The court did not decide that there was a jurisdictional bar.
5. Directions and outcome. The proposed judicial review claim was directed to be set out in Form N461, grounds, witness evidence and an indexed bundle. The defendant was directed to file an acknowledgment of service, response and evidence, including confirmation of candid disclosure. The claimant could then file a reply. The application for relief concerning the already-let premises was not pursued. Alternative pre-claim interim relief was refused, with costs reserved to the judicial review proceedings.