Alexander McColl successfully secures interim relief in homelessness judicial review
10 April 2025
Alexander represented his client (‘M’) at the Administrative Court in the Manchester Civil Justice Centre (pictured). Credit: Marmalade Photos / Shutterstock.
Garden Court North’s Alexander McColl successfully secured an interim injunction in the Administrative Court, requiring a council to secure interim accommodation for his client pending a hearing of the claim for judicial review.
In a procedurally complex claim, Alexander’s client (‘M’) was a refugee who was required to leave her Home Office accommodation when her claim for asylum succeeded. She had nowhere else to go. This is a common issue faced by those newly granted asylum.
Local authorities are required to provide interim accommodation for those in priority need while their circumstances are assessed, according to s188(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
M argued that she was vulnerable because of the issues she faced on her journey to the UK, and the unique difficulties she would face as a homeless person. She argued she should be treated as in priority need due to being vulnerable within the meaning of s189(3)(c) of the Housing Act 1996.
The council refused to provide interim accommodation. In response, M issued urgent judicial review proceedings along an expedited timetable and applied for an interim injunction, requiring the council to secure temporary accommodation throughout the duration of the claim.
Reviewing the application on the papers, the Court neither granted nor refused the application for interim relief, but instead scheduled an oral hearing to take place in three weeks. This would have left M street homeless for a significant amount of time before the issue came before the Court.
Alexander drafted an urgent application to set aside the order which listed the oral hearing under CPR 3.3(5)(a) – and to require a same-day hearing to consider the application for relief.
This was granted and an oral hearing was held that afternoon. The Court accepted Alexander’s submissions and granted M’s application for interim relief.
M was accommodated by the council, and, ultimately, M was able to use the extra time to find long-term housing. The case was settled this week before a substantive hearing.
M’s case is a reminder of the importance of the power in CPR 3.3(5)(a) to challenge decisions (including listings) which are made by the court of its own initiative without hearing representations.
Alexander McColl was instructed by Tom Lavin and Esther Sills of Vauxhall Law Centre.
For further information, please contact Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk
