[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 >> London Borough Of Newham v Austin [2001] EWCA Civ 1258 (12 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1258.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1258

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BOW COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRADBURY)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 12 July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: This is an application for permission to appeal by the London Borough of Newham ("Newham"). The application is also for an extension of time. There is no problem about that. It is a very short delay and an adequate explanation has been offered.
2. Newham wishes to appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Laurie, made at Bow County Court on 21 May last, allowing an appeal under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 brought by Ms Stacey Austin.
3. Ms Austin appealed from a decision on a review under Section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 communicated to Ms Austin by letter dated 24 January 2001, informing her that Newham had no further duty to accommodate her. That decision was based on Newham's conclusion that Ms Austin had on or before 10 October 2000 refused to accept an offer of accommodation which on Newham's case was suitable and ought reasonably to have been accepted, see Section 193(5) and (7). The decision was taken by an appeals officer, Mr Paul Clark.
4. Ms Austin's case was that the accommodation offered, a two-bedroom fifteenth floor flat with a lift at 66 Albert Briggs Point, Godfrey Street, London, E15, was unsuitable and that she was acting reasonably in refusing it because she had a fear of heights and suffered from vertigo or dizziness as well as depression. At the time of the hearing in the Bow County Court Ms Austin was a teenage single mother and so she was and is a person with priority need for housing. Since then she has attained the age of 20 years. She has a son now aged about 20 months.
5. The essential issue for the judge was whether the appeals officer (who like Newham's medical assessment officer, is not medically qualified, but no doubt has considerable experience in perusing medical reports) made an error of law in failing to take account of material facts concerning Ms Austin's medical condition and failed to give adequate reasons or to put matters of concern to Ms Austin.
6. On the last point, Ms Austin's counsel referred to the case of R v Hackney LBC, ex p Decordova (1994) 27 HLR 108. The appeals officer in his witness statement pointed out that as appears from the decision letter itself, he had referred to four separate items of medical evidence. I need not go through these in detail but they were two relatively short and undetailed letters from a locum general practitioner and a regular general practitioner and two forms completed by the same doctors which in effect gave the same information in a more official format. The last letter, dated 30 October 2000, spoke of Ms Austin being referred to the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic at Newham General Hospital, but it appears that, for whatever reason, that appointment was not kept.
7. In his judgment the judge considered the evidence at some length. He thought that the witness statement of Mr Clark, the appeals officer, had put Newham's case on a different basis from the review letter. Speaking of Mr Clark the judge stated:

"... there is no diagnosis of any medical condition which renders the offered accommodation unsuitable and that a fear of heights and enclosed spaces is not a diagnosed medical condition rendering accommodation unsuitable. He says fear of heights can only be based upon an assertion from the appellant and in the absence of any diagnosis a fear of heights is not a medical condition at all. None of the factors mentioned by the GP, according to Mr Clark, render the accommodation unsuitable nor does the GP say that the accommodation is unsuitable. I can only say that, in making these remarks, Mr Clark is putting himself at issue with the plainest possible expert medical opinion which was the only medical evidence before him. No reasonable person could arrive at such conclusions in the absence of other medical evidence."

8. When I considered the application for permission to appeal on paper on 18 June 2001 I wrote:

"It is arguable that the judge erred in concluding (in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment) that Mr Clark had ignored the `plainest possible expert medical opinion' when all he had was brief notes from busy GPs; there was nothing from the ENT consultant (and an issue as to whether Ms Austin attended for appointment with him) and no psychiatric evidence.

On the other hand the practical effect of the judge's decision is not conclusive. It is simply to require another review. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that a second appeal would meet the test in s.55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. If the application is renewed the London Borough of Newham must be prepared to establish that the public interest requires a second appeal (at public expense on both sides)."

9. Then on 4 July 2001, that is last week, Mr Clark wrote to Ms Austin a letter which I will not refer to any more than to say it is a letter which Miss Kerry Bretherton, appearing today for Newham, has described as most unfortunate and which will have to be explained in due course to the full Court. However, Miss Bretherton has satisfied me that there is indeed a point of principle of general importance here, that is how far a local housing authority, hard pressed as most local housing authorities are, but Newham no doubt even more hard pressed than most, is bound to rely on very brief medical reports from very busy general practitioners, especially when those relate not to ordinary medical conditions but to matters such as fear of heights which may or may not have psychiatric implications. That, it seems to me, is potentially a point of some general importance. Cases such as R v The London Borough of Brent, ex p Omar (1991) 23 HLR 446 are based on truly exceptional facts; that being the case of a Somali woman who had spent much of her childhood imprisoned in awful conditions in Somalia and had later been imprisoned and tortured as a young woman. Guidance may be appropriate from this Court as to how local housing authorities should approach medical evidence in less exceptional cases.
10. I will therefore grant permission to appeal and an extension of time.
Order: Application for permission to appeal and an extension of time granted.