Bringing a section 204 appeal out of time
Toby Vanhegan examines a recent High Court ruling on whether a claimant could bring a section 204 appeal out of time.
In Idara v. Southwark LBC [2024] EWHC (KB) (currently unreported) the High Court held that in order to be granted permission to bring a homelessness appeal out of time, the appellant must show both a good reason why the appeal was not brought within time, and a good reason for the whole period of the delay in applying for permission to appeal out of time, if that application was not made within 21 days. Only if the appellant could do that, did the court have a discretion as to whether to grant permission.
By a letter dated 23 March 2023, the respondents completed their homelessness review and decided that the accommodation was suitable and therefore their full housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 ("the Act") had ended because she had refused the offer.
The appellant could not find a legal representative to help with the appeal. She went to Citizens Advice and they gave her a list of 15 solicitors. She contacted all of them but could not find one who could help within the 21 days for appealing.
Time for appealing expired on 14 April 2023. On 20 April 2023 she instructed her current solicitors. Counsel provided advice and grounds on 21 April 2023 but then the paralegal with conduct went on leave and did not return until 3 May 2023. A colleague was left with the file but did not lodge the appeal. The paralegal returned to work on 3 May 2023 and lodged it on that date with an application for permission to appeal out of time.
On 6 October 2023 HHJ Hellman refused permission to appeal out of time. He decided that there was a good reason why the appeal was not lodged within 21 days because the appellant could not find a solicitor, but no good reason for the delay from 20 April to 3 May 2023.
The appellant appealed to the High Court. On 31 July 2024 the court granted permission on the papers. On 8 November 2024 the appeal was heard by Sir Peter Toole, sitting as a judge of the High Court. On appeal, the appellant argued that section 204(2A)(b) of the Act required that she only had to show a good reason why the appeal was not brought within 21 days, and why the application for permission was not made within that time. Since she had a good reason for the former, that was also the good reason for the latter. The court could consider the delay after the 21 days when exercising its discretion whether or not to grant permission out of time.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that under section 204(2A)(b), the appellant had to show both a good reason for not appealing within 21 days, and a good reason for the whole period of the delay until she applied for permission to appeal out of time. She had a good reason for the former, but not the latter, and therefore she could not satisfy the gateway requirements to access the court's discretion to grant permission out of time. The Court also held that if the appellant had been able to satisfy section 204(2A)(b), the delay would then be a factor to take into account when the court considered whether to exercise its discretion to grant permission to appeal out of time.
Toby Vanhegan is a barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. He appeared for the appellant both in the High Court and county court.
