[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

She contends that the judge erred in law in refusing her application under CPR rule 19.4 to intervene in the Council’s application for an injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act. She argues that the judge failed properly to apply the first limb of the test under CPR rule 19.2(2) as to the desirability of joinder, and (as a consequence or separately) also erred in exercising his discretion to refuse joinder.

Secondly, she contends that the judge materially erred in law in deciding that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim relief sought by the Council in respect both of: (i) the approach to the factors relevant to planning control; and (ii) the impact of the relief on the statutory duty of the SSHD to accommodate asylum seekers. The judge ought to have refused interim relief.