The claimant, a French national with pre-settled status, applied to the local housing authority to be placed on the housing register for allocation of housing under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. The authority refused the application on the ground that she was ineligible. The claimant’s further application under the homelessness provisions in Part VII of the 1996 Act was also refused, the decision being upheld on review under section 202 of the 1996 Act, inter alia, on the basis that the claimant had not been economically active in the United Kingdom and that her right to equal treatment under article 23 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community did not require her to be treated as eligible. The claimant appealed that decision under section 204(1)(a) of the 1996 Act and, while procedural matters were being resolved, she made a fresh application for housing assistance in light of her threatened eviction from accommodation which had, in the interim, been provided by another authority under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The local authority applied to strike out the claimant’s appeal under CPR 52.18 on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that a court lost jurisdiction to determine a pending appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act where the relevant local housing authority entertained a fresh application by applicant for housing assistance or the applicant accepted that they were not presently homeless, (ii) that the appeal had been rendered academic by the fact that the claimant had the benefit of an assured shorthold tenancy, expiring in October 2024, (iii) that whether she might become, or was threatened with, homelessness upon expiry of that tenancy was speculation and (iv) that in November 2025 the claimant would, in any event, obtain indefinite leave to remain and the question of threshold eligibility for assistance thus disappeared.
On the local housing authority’s application to strike out the appeal—
Held, application dismissed. (1) The mere fact of making a fresh application did not, automatically or impliedly, constitute the abandonment of a prior application subject to an extant appeal. While it might be that the effect of a successful fresh application would render an appeal pointless, and liable to be struck out as academic, it would not, without some clear expression of intention or unequivocal conduct, amount to an abandonment of the appeal by an appellant (paras 22, 23, 25).
(2) While there were plainly some matters which were so based on speculation as to be fanciful, and which could not be legitimate interests for the purposes of persuading a court that the matter pursued was not academic, a risk of future homelessness could be a sufficient interest such that the matter was not academic. Further, the point in issue was of considerable public importance. In the present case, the claimant had a strong and legitimate ongoing interest in the resolution of the appeal, which assessment had to be premised upon the necessary assumption that she would be successful in her appeal (paras 36–39, 41, 45).
(3) While the court had an inherent power to strike out an appeal without determining it, where to allow it to proceed would be an abuse of the process of the court, in the present case the mere acceptance by the claimant that she was no longer homeless did not of itself render the appeal abusive (para 29).
Simon Cox (instructed by Turpin Miller LLP, Oxford ) for the claimant.
Andrew Lane (instructed by Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Vale of White Horse District Council, Abingdon) for the local housing authority.
Charles Bishop (instructed by Public Law Project) on behalf of the first proposed intervener, The3Million Ltd, by written submissions.
James Cornwell (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the second proposed intervener, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, by written submissions.
Samantha Morrison, solicitor (of IMA Legal Directorate) for the third proposed intervener, the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, by written submissions.