星空传媒

Mr Francis applied to the council as homeless. It decided that he did not have a priority need. He asked for a review, which failed. Mr Francis then appealed to the county court claiming that this was wrong in law.

The council refused to continue temporary housing until the court could hear that appeal. Mr Francis then exercised a new right to appeal again to the county court against that refusal. The judge dismissed this second appeal. Mr Francis said the judge had been wrong not to take account of the merits of his pending first appeal. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

It said the judge's task was to see if the council had properly considered its discretionary power to provide accommodation pending appeal. That did not involve revisiting the "merits". The function was to ensure that the discretion had been lawfully deployed. In this case it had been.