CA-2024-002348 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1390

The Court may refuse to entertain an appeal if the appeal is academic. That may, for example, be the case where there is no longer any live issue between the parties.

In the present case, Mr Paget, for the respondent, submitted that the appeal should be dismissed as it is academic. First, he submitted that the respondent’s housing allocation scheme has been amended with effect from April 2025. I do not see how that fact renders the appeal academic. The issues relate to whether the provisions of the respondent’s housing allocation scheme in force prior to that date gave rise to a breach of section 19 or 20 of the 2010 Act or whether the respondent was in breach of section 149 of that Act.

Secondly, and more significantly, Mr Paget submitted that there is no longer any live issue between the parties as the appellant has accepted an offer of a private sector tenancy. Although the respondent’s application to dismiss referred to that as the allocation of Part VI accommodation, the appellant submits that that is incorrect. The appellant appears to have been offered a private rented sector tenancy which would bring the duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act to an end (see section 193(7AA) and has not been allocated social housing under Part VI of the 1996 Act.

In any event, the precise status of the offer is not the material consideration. It is accepted that the appellant has sought a review pursuant to section 202 of the 1996 Act as he considers that the accommodation is not suitable for his needs. That review has not yet been determined (and the appellant would have an appeal to the county court under section 204 if the review was unfavourable). If the reviewer (or the county court on appeal) finds that the accommodation is not suitable, then the duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act would continue. The appellant would continue to be a homeless person, still on the housing register, and still be eligible to be awarded 200 points as a homeless person. He would not be eligible for an award of 50 or 150 points for a low or medium level health and wellbeing need. Until the review (or appeal) is resolved, there continues to be a live issue between the parties. Furthermore, the claim for judicial review included a claim for damages in respect of discrimination. The issues relating to the 2010 Act will therefore need to be resolved in order to determine the claim for damages. That remains a live issue. For those reasons, this appeal is not academic. I would therefore refuse the respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal.