Michael Mullin and Joseph Mahon successful in the Court of Appeal

7th February 2025

The Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in the matter of R(Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2025] EWCA Civ 92].

 

Acting unanimously, the court overturned the decision of the lower court and dismissed Ms Bano’s claim for judicial review. Michael Mullin and Joseph Mahon acted successfully on behalf of the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the “Borough”).

 

There were two issues in the case:

 

  1. Whether the Borough was required to ‘decide’ that its main housing duty under s193 Housing Act 1996 (the “Main Duty”) had come to an end, after it had made a Private Rented Sector Offer (“PRSO”) of accommodation (pursuant to s193(7AA) HA 1996) to Ms Bano which had been refused, or whether the Main Duty came to an end automatically upon the refusal of the offer.

 

  1. Whether in any event the Borough had decided, at some point between July – October 2020, that the Main Duty had come to an end.

 

Giving the judgment of the court, Newey LJ held that:

 

  1. The Borough was not obliged to ‘decide’ that the Main Duty had come to an end as a result of an acceptance or refusal of a PRSO, nor to notify an applicant of the same. The effect of s193(7AA) is that there is (and there was in this case) an automatic discharge of the Main Duty upon acceptance or refusal of a PRSO, provided the other statutory preconditions have been complied with.

 

  1. In any event, the court found that the Borough had formed the view, between June – October 2020, that its duty towards Ms Bano had come to an end and had communicated that to her in various letters/emails. There was no form of words required; it was sufficient for those communications simply to be “confirmatory of a prior discharge”.

 

It therefore followed that Borough’s duty towards Ms Bano had come to an end upon her refusal of the PRSO in June 2020. The Borough’s decision to end its Main Duty via PRSO was reviewable, as were the later communications in August and October 2020. Ms Bano had failed to seek s202 reviews of those decisions. As she had failed to avail of those alternative remedies, the court would not grant permission for judicial review.

The judgement can be found here.