By Ashley Young-
A Court Of Appeal judge has granted an out of time appeal in the case of a homeless man after a court had overruled a judge in an earlier hearing who allowed the appeal.
The case was in relation to an application by a homeless man Mr Al Ahmed, against Tower Hamlets Council under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, after the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested a review of that decision. The decision on the review, upheld the original decision to his disappointment. He appealed the decision under section 204 of the 1996 Act , but exceeded the 21 day time limitation period.
His appeal which was lodged on 25 May 2018 included an application for permission to appeal out of time, along with two substantive grounds of appeal.
He claimed breach of regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness Regulations 1999, in that a “minded to” letter requesting further representations was not received by the appellant, and that in any event an insufficient period was allowed to enable an unrepresented lay person an opportunity to make meaningful representations; and (2) failure to comply with the duty of inquiry under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 into the question of the appellant’s disability.
His appeal was granted by Lord Hellman but Tower Hamlets appealed the decision to the High Court against Judge Hellman’s order granting permission to appeal out of time.
The Council argued that he had applied the wrong test, had taken into account an irrelevant consideration and had reached a conclusion not reasonably open on the evidence before him. The appeal was heard by Dove J, who gave judgement allowing the appeal and holding that the s.204(2A) application for permission to appeal out of time should be refused.
Lord Justice Phillips at the High Court ruled that Dove J was mistaken in overruling Lord Hellman in a previous court case that his case could be appealed out of time. The High Court judge criticised Dove J’s beliefs that it was not necessary for a homeless man to have a lawyer before his appeal could properly be brought to court.
Lord Phillips said that an appellate court should be slow to interfere in the decision of judges made on matters of value judgement. Lord Phillips made reference to long emails the homeless applicant had made to his council, none of which had highlighted a point of law relevant to his case as evidence that he was not equipped to act without a lawyer.
Lord Hellman had made reference to a contrast of the lengthy emails by Al to the council to the succinct grounds eventually filed by his legal representatives out of time. This was in the light of the Respondent’s “limitations”, in that what was required was a “technical legal document”, in respect of which “he probably had no idea what it needed to say”.