Bibi, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 11, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1860 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Bibi, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 11, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1860 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
01/3381/2001 Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 1860 AdminIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2 Friday, 11 July 2003 B E F O R E:MR JUSTICE OWEN - - - - - - -THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MANIK BIBI(CLAIMANT)-v- LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM(DEFENDANT) - - - - - - -Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - -MR CHRISTOPHER MAYNARD (instructed by MORGAN HALL SOLS) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR DAVID MATTHIAS (instructed by LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO LB NEWHAM) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T (As Approved by the Court) - - - - - - -Crown copyright©1. MR JUSTICE OWEN: On 5th October 2001 Burnton J gave permission to the claimant to apply for judicial review of decisions made by the London Borough of Newham. The application was principally directed to decisions made by the authority in June 2001 and in October 2001. But as a result of events in the period that has since elapsed the only limb of the original application now pursued is the claim under paragraph 7.1 of the claim form to:"A Declaration that the Council has a subsisting duty to the Claimant pursuant to section 65(2) of the Housing Act 1985 to secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for her occupation."2. The issue between the parties can be simply stated. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant that she applied to the authority on 13_th_ March 1991 for assistance as a homeless person. On 31_st_ May 1991 the authority acknowledged that it owed her a duty under section 65(2) of the 1985 Act. But it is submitted that the authority has since failed to discharge its obligations to her. The respondent, to whom I shall refer as 'the authority', contends that it discharged its obligations under section 65(2) by arranging for the claimant and her family to be accommodated at 34 Jade Close, London E6, a property of which she took up occupation on 26_th_ October 1995.3. The issue may be simply stated, but the historical context in which it arises is complex. The principal features relevant to the issue now before me are as follows. Between 1991 and 1995 various temporary accommodation was provided to the claimant and her family. 4. On 26_th_ October 1995 she was granted an assured short-hold tenancy of 34 Jade Close, a two-storey maisonette, for a term of six months by the London and Quadrant Housing Trust. She remained in occupation of 34 Jade Close until August 2001. 5. In March 1997 the claimant was offered accommodation at 6 Scott House, Q...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
