AC-2025-LON-001949 - [2025] EWHC 2425 (Admin)

Discussion and decision on relief

a)​ The Procedural History and two preliminary issues

The Claimant issued the claim for judicial review on 16 June 2025.

On 18 June 2025, Mr Christopher Kennedy KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, refused the Claimant’s application for interim relief but he made directions leading to an early determination of permission.

On 21 July 2025, Ms Sarah Crowther KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, granted the Claimant permission and ordered that the claim was suitable to be heard during the vacation.

Two preliminary issues were raised at the start of the hearing.

First, the Claimant made an application on 19 August 2025 for permission to rely upon evidence in reply to the Defendant’s Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim. The evidence upon which he sought to rely was a second statement from his solicitor, Mr Panayi, and it was directed to the availability of accommodation. That application was unopposed by the Defendant.

The second procedural issue concerned an application by the Defendant dated 26 August 2025 to rely upon a second witness statement from Ms Beverley Peterkin. Ms Peterkin is the Accommodation Solutions Manager for the Defendant. Her second witness statement corrects an error in her first witness statement and responds to the witness statement of Mr Panayi. Ms Peterkin also provided an update in relation to securing accommodation for the Claimant. On behalf of the Claimant, Mr Nabi did not object to the application but only on the basis that paragraph 8 of Ms Peterkin’s statement was not accepted and that the Claimant would otherwise wish to serve evidence in rebuttal. The passage in dispute was Ms Peterkin’s assertion that “[t]he Claimant has previously indicated that he is not interested in working with the [Private Rented Sector] team but if he has since reconsidered, I can make this referral.” Mr Nabi said that Ms Peterkin had misunderstood the Claimant’s position. In an email dated 31 March 2025 the Claimant had expressed concern at a text message that he had received stating that “[the Defendant] has asked us to help you find a private rented property”. At that stage, the Claimant was unrepresented, and he was not aware of the role of the Defendant’s Private Rented Sector team.

On behalf of the Defendant, Mr Peacock submitted that paragraph 8 of the witness statement accurately represented the Claimant’s position and he referred to an email dated June 11 2025 in which the Claimant (again writing directly rather than through solicitors) had stated that “private renting is not a viable option for us”.

At the hearing I indicated that I would consider both witness statements de bene esse and would make a decision on the applications when giving my judgment.

I allow both applications.

The first application was unopposed, and the witness statement provides a response to the Detailed Statement of Grounds. It is in accordance with the overriding objective for me to take that statement into account.

I allow the second application on the basis that it provides an important correction of Ms Peterkin’s first statement (in relation to prioritisation given for allocation of additional temporary accommodation) as well as an update in relation to the Defendant’s efforts to source suitable accommodation for the Claimant.