O -v- London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-002200

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

22 July 2024

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

Between:

The King on the application of
O

-v-

London Borough of Hillingdon

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted on grounds 1 and 2.
  2. The application is to be listed for 2 hours; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.
  3. If this matter can be resolved by consent following the provision of a new Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) and Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) and the provision of suitable self-contained accommodation as proposed in the AOS, then the parties shall notify the court and provide an agreed consent order as soon as possible thereafter.

Observations

  1. The Claimant is a victim of human trafficking who has been granted refugee status. Following that grant, she now needs to move from the safe house funded by the Home Office and is seeking accommodation from the Defendant local housing authority.
  2. She challenges the Defendant’s failures to comply with its duty under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 to assess the Claimant’s housing needs and produce a plan to secure suitable accommodation and to secure suitable accommodation, as required by section 188(1) and section 206 of the Housing Act 1996 (Grounds 1 and 2) She also alleges that the Defendant’s housing allocation policy discriminates against her as a victim of human trafficking contrary to section 19 Equality Act 2010 and Article 14 ECHR (Ground 3) and that under that policy she has no realistic prospect of obtaining settled social housing.
  3. The Claimant has chronic renal failure and is awaiting a kidney transplant. She undergoes regular dialysis and is immune-compromised so is at risk of infection in shared accommodation.
  4. Following the order of Lang J on 27.6.24, the Defendant served an AOS and has conceded grounds 1 and 2. The Defendant has accepted that it needs to provide a new HNA and PHP and has also now offered self-contained accommodation to the Claimant, but I have not seen any evidence that these actions have been completed.
  5. The Defendant disputes ground 3 on the basis that its allocations policy taken as a whole does not indirectly discriminate against the Claimant and that she is eligible to be assessed as a priority need under that policy. Further, the Defendant contends that such discrimination as the Claimant may prove is justified having regard to the legitimate aim of its policy to reward long-term residents of the borough.
  6. In light of the concessions made by the Defendant, I do not consider ground 3 is arguable as the Claimant has now been offered accommodation and has not adduced any evidence that the Defendant’s accepted past failures resulted from any indirect discrimination towards victims of trafficking in its allocation policy.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
  3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than [4] weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than [21] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than [14] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than [3] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.