A couple of brief notes on things of interest.

Lewis v Francis & Anor (2025) EWHC 17 (Admin)

An appeal from the Magistrates Court on a costs award on a failed s.82 Environmental Protection Act 1972 private prosecution. The Magistrates Court had awarded the defendant costs to be paid by the applicant (who was in person) on the basis that

The proceedings were unnecessary. The applicant failed in his basis duty (sic) to reflect and consider the quality of his evidence to determine objectively whether it would stand up to scrutiny.

The applicant’s failure to objectively assess the evidence made the proceedings unnecessary.

And this amounted to an unnecessary or improper act.

The High Court allowed the appeal

I do not think the judge was sufficiently alive to the risk that his decision would tend to have a chilling effect on exercise of the section 82 remedy. He did not mention the issue, though it has featured prominently in cases such as Pearshouse and Haigh. I am in no doubt that if this appeal were to fail, there would be a chilling effect on exercise of that remedy, which parliament has chosen to entrust to the citizenry at large.

For those reasons, I am persuaded that the judge’s decision is wrong and cannot stand. He disagreed with the decision to prosecute. He found that the evidence was so weak that no reasonable tribunal could convict on the basis of it. There is no challenge to that decision. But he did not find, and it was not open to him to find on the material that is in the case stated, that no reasonable prosecutor could have decided to bring the claim on the basis of the evidence available to the appellant at the point of issuing the proceedings.

MV, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lewisham (2025) EWHC 280 (Admin)

A curious judicial review claim by Mr MV in person. MV lived with his partner in his partner’s leasehold flat. LB Lewisham were the freeholder and the property was managed by Pinnacle Group. MV alleged that he and his partner suffered criminal conduct and severe ASB from tenants of another flat. The claim was on the basis that neither Pinnacle or Lewisham had taken action to control the tenants, and that Lewisham had failed to provide emergency accommodation to MV, his partner and child, by only awarding band 3 on its allocation policy.

Permission was refused on the failure to take action to control the tenants, on the basis that other remedies were available, in nuisance or harassment against the tenants, but granted on the allocation issue.

Lewisham withdrew its original decision on the basis that it had found out that the decision maker had used the 2017 allocation policy, not the 2022 one which should have been used. A fresh decision was made that MV was not eligible for the housing register. ON the Court indicating it would be prepared to consider the claim as a challenge to this new decision, Lewisham indicated that it would withdraw the decision and make a fresh one if MV provided the information sought.

MV then said that he would be seeking substantial compensation in his claim.

The High Court held:

i) There was no basis to order Lewisham to give MV band 1 priority as he sought. There was an email to Lewisham from the police setting out risks to MV, his partner and their child, but it was not clear that this was a referral or that consideration by Lewisham’s Housing Panel would be obligated in consequence.

ii) There was no basis for a claim in damages.

As well as seeking relief in respect of the defendant’s failure to place him in Band 1 and provide him with accommodation, the claimant seeks compensation under various heads. His attitude in relation to this issue has varied. He told me at the hearing that he did not seek compensation, but then in his written submissions of 20 December 2024 he changed his mind and sought compensation under several heads. I see no justification for any award of compensation. The sole ground on which the claimant was given permission to apply for judicial review is what he alleges was the defendant’s unlawful administrative action of failing to place him within Band 1 and provide him with accommodation. The law does not recognise a right to claim damages for losses caused by unlawful administrative action. There has to be a distinct cause of action in tort or under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”); see R (Quark Fishing Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2006) 1 AC 529.

The original ‘band 3’ decision was quashed. The claimant was awarded litigant in person costs up to the point that Lewisham withdrew the first decision.

Comment – while, reading between the lines, it appears that MV’s claim as advanced, and as a litigant in person, was in large part hopeless (and it remains the case that a landlord is not liable for their tenant’s nuisance unless the landlord has adopted or encouraged it), it nonetheless resulted in Lewisham withdrawing one (and perhaps two) unlawful decisions and MV’s success on at least that element of the claim. It is good that the Admin court was alert to the potential unlawful decision in the middle of an otherwise unarguable judicial review claim by a litigant in person.

Right to Manage and Lease Extensions

Regulations have now been made such that from 3 March 2025:

i) The 2 year qualification period for applying for a statutory lease extension is removed.

ii) The ‘non-residential floorspace’ limit for Right to Manage rises from 25% to 50%, making more buildings eligible for RTM.

iii) The landlord’s legal costs in an RTM application will not have to be paid by the leaseholders.