[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Minsende v London Borough Of Lambeth [2002] EWCA Civ 1066 (15 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1066.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1066

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM LAMBETH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Roger Cox)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Monday 15 July 2002

Monday 15 July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Judge Roger Cox in the Lambeth County Court on 12 June 2002. It raises, in stark form, a somewhat novel point under the homelessness legislation, namely the effect of a fire rendering the premises uninhabitable, in no way occasioned by the occupants, upon imminent likely intentional homelessness through a long period of non-payment of rent.
2. The applicants' prospects of success may be thought slender. It would, after all, be somewhat remarkable if the adventitious intercession of a fire were to make all the difference and to start history running afresh with regard to intentional homelessness. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that the case law is less than entirely satisfactory in this regard, particularly having regard to the decision of the House of Lords in Din v London Borough of Wandsworth [1981] 3 All ER 881, in which the majority of their Lordships concluded, in the words of the headnote, that:

"Having regard to the plain and unambiguous meaning of the 1997 Act and the context in which it was to be administered, namely that of competing priorities for available local authority housing which was in acutely short supply, the material date for determining whether a person had become homeless intentionally or unintentionally was the date on which he left his accommodation, and hypothetical events which might have occurred if the person had stayed in his accommodation and which might have caused him to become homeless unintentionally were irrelevant in considering an application by a homeless person for permanent accommodation under the Act."

3. That principle, in the circumstances of Din's case, availed the landlord authority. There, the likely unintentional homelessness which would have followed from the occupants remaining in the accommodation was held not to avail them, being merely part of the history which, on the application of the relevant section of the Act on its unambiguous meaning, was held irrelevant.
4. The applicant here seeks to invoke the same principle, but this time in the occupants' favour. As my Lord, Lord Justice Latham observed in the course of the brief hearing this morning (at which we had the advantage also of hearing from Mr Carter for the respondent authority), it is time that somebody considered this matter and produced an intellectually honest and supportable approach to this tricky situation.
5. For my part, I am inclined to grant permission here, less perhaps because I consider the appeal has a real prospect of success under subparagraph (a) of CPR 52.3(6), than because it seems to me that there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under subparagraph (b). In either event, I for my part would grant the application for permission.
6. Clearly this is a matter which ought now to be disposed of with some expedition. It will take no more than half a day to be argued, although it may well be that judgment will have to be reserved so that it can be carefully written.
7. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I agree.
ORDER: Application allowed. Appeal to be heard with expedition before three Lords Justices. Time estimate of half a day. (Order not part of approved judgment)