星空传媒

Ms C had suffered traumatic incidents as a teenager. While still young, she left home and was given her own independent tenancy of a council flat, but was soon evicted for non-payment of rent. She applied to the council for rehousing but it decided that she had become intentionally homeless. She claimed to have been incapable of properly managing her finances but she did not apply for a review of the council's decision within the normal 21 days allowed.

Months later she got a sympathetic GP's letter and found solicitors who wrote asking the council to exercise its power to extend the 21-day period and allow a review of its decision. The council gave a reasoned rejection of the request for an extension of time.

The solicitors wrote again to ask for an extension, enclosing a psychiatrist's report. Again, the council declined to extend the 21-day period.

The Court of Appeal rejected Ms C's appeal from the dismissal of her challenge to the council's refusal to extend time. It decided the council had a wide discretion in deciding whether to accept late review requests. In this case, the council had properly considered the material put before it. No appeal lay against its exercise of discretion and only in an unusual case would it be possible to upset such a decision in a claim for judicial review.