CA-2024-002185 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1049

Ms Monaghan KC, with Mr Sprack, for the appellant submitted that the judge failed to identify the PCP relied upon by the appellant, namely the two PCPs identified in the skeleton argument for the High Court hearing. Ms Monaghan accepted that, in fact, the second formulation did not add anything to the first formulation and, in reality, the appellant was relying on one PCP, as formulated in the skeleton argument. Ms Monaghan did not seek to rely on the PCP as formulated in the claim form.

Ms Monaghan submitted that that the PCP that she relied on had two elements, namely (1) the practice of operating a database for homeless applicants who seek a transfer and (2) providing to some or all of the applicants unsuitable accommodation whilst they remain on the list. Ms Monaghan submitted that the judge identified, and dealt with, a different PCP, namely the inclusion of information in a database – which reflected the first element, but did not include the second element, of the PCP relied upon. Ms Monaghan submitted that it was for the appellant to identify the PCP on which she relied, relying on the observation by Sedley LJ in paragraph 12 of his judgment in Allonby v Accrington College [2001] EWCA Civ 529; [2001] ICR 1189 that it “is for the applicant to identify the requirement or condition which she seeks to impugn”.

Alternatively, Ms Monaghan submitted that the judge was wrong to conclude that a database on which information was stored was not a PCP. She submitted that it was a state of affairs and that was sufficient, relying on the judgment of Simler LJ, with which Sir Jack Beatson agreed, in Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112; [20220] ICR 1204.

Mr Rutledge KC, with Ms Screeche-Powell, for the respondent submitted that the issue had to be put in context. The maintenance of the database was concerned with efficient data management. The circumstances of homeless applicants and their personal details, had to be assessed to determine their needs. This also enabled the respondent to respond speedily and effectively to secure accommodation which became available only for short periods of time. The database was a means of recording information and matching the needs of households against available accommodation. As such the judge was correct to conclude that the respondent was not applying a PCP.