Geraldine Walker, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley

A judicial review claim must be determined by reference to the pleaded grounds. Procedural rigour remains necessary where the claimant is unrepresented, because the defendant must know the case it has to meet. An academic claim should generally be refused unless there is a good public-interest reason to decide it. Challenges to the suitability of accommodation offered under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 should ordinarily proceed through the statutory review and county-court appeal route under sections 202 and 204. The Administrative Court should exercise its residual jurisdiction despite that alternative remedy only in exceptional circumstances. Concern about delay in the statutory process is not, without more, exceptional.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Bromley’s alleged failure to provide accommodation and comply with duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, together with public-law, equality and human-rights grounds. The claim was filed before the defendant offered temporary accommodation and later accepted that the full housing duty was owed. Interim accommodation was ordered under section 188(1).

The claimant subsequently challenged the suitability of the accommodation offered, although that issue was not pleaded and no amendment was sought. The central issues were whether the pleaded claim remained justiciable, and whether the Administrative Court should determine the unpleaded suitability challenge despite the statutory review and appeal mechanisms.

1. Claim dismissed. The application to discharge the interim relief order served no practical purpose because the order would lapse when judgment was handed down.
2. The court was required to focus on the pleaded grounds. Even for a litigant in person, procedural rigour was necessary so that the defendant knew the case it had to meet. The pleaded challenge concerned alleged ongoing failures to secure accommodation under sections 188 and 189B of the Housing Act 1996.
3. That claim had become academic. The defendant had offered accommodation on the day the claim was filed and subsequently accepted the full housing duty under section 193. The section 188 and section 189B duties had therefore lapsed. Although the court retained a discretion to decide an academic claim, it should do so cautiously and only where there was a good reason in the public interest. No such reason existed.
4. The suitability challenge was not part of the pleaded claim and the claimant had not applied to amend it. In any event, sections 202 and 204 provided an adequate alternative remedy. The statutory review, followed if necessary by an appeal to the county court on a point of law, was the process Parliament intended for challenges to accommodation suitability. The Administrative Court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
5. The claimant’s concern that the statutory review might take too long was not exceptional. The court also noted that the suitability checklist might not have recorded all her disabilities and expressed the hope that the defendant would exercise its discretion to consider an out-of-time review. That observation did not justify determining the judicial review claim.

The interim accommodation order lapsed on judgment. The Croydon flat remained available, but the claimant was left to choose whether to occupy it while pursuing a section 202 review.