Better late than never? Only if you ensure you have a good reason to ask for an extension of time as well
In Idara v LB of Southwark (KBD, 8 November 2024) Sir Peter Lane considered the interpretation of section 204(2A) of the Housing Act 1996, in a case where the solicitors with conduct of the case, Lawstop, had negligently allowed a significant period of time to elapse before lodging an appeal, which was already out of time as the Appellant herself had struggled to find solicitors.
The Appellant had been offered accommodation by Southwark, but had rejected it, and Southwark discharged their duty to her. She recognised the mistake she had made, but by that time it was too late: the accommodation had been offered to someone else.
She sought a review of the decision to discharge duty, and Southwark upheld their decision that the accommodation was suitable for her.
She did not lodge an appeal in time. She read Shelter’s website, which gives superb advice to people in her situation, but did not appeal or seek an extension of time to appeal; instead she sought a review – again. Southwark advised her that she should appeal; she did not do so.
She struggled to find legal advice until finding Lawstop – where she had an appointment 6 days after time expired. Lawstop wrote to Southwark and, somewhat optimistically, asked them to withdraw the review decision. Southwark declined.
At first instance, HHJ Hellman had, perhaps generously, accepted that the Appellant had a good reason for not bringing an appeal in time. She had not been able to find legal advice.
However, after she instructed Lawstop, things went horribly wrong. Rather than lodging an appeal, the paralegal who was looking after Ms Idara’s interests went on holiday. It is not clear who was holding the case in the paralegal’s absence, but they had no legal qualifications, and there was no apparent oversight from any qualified lawyer at Lawstop.
The result was that, even though counsel provided positive advice on 21 April 2023, the appeal was not lodged until 4 May 2023, on the paralegal’s return.
HHJ Hellman held that this was inexcusable. He refused permission to appeal out of time.
The Appellant then appealed against this decision. Lawstop compounded their earlier errors by lodging the appeal in the wrong court, but she was granted permission to appeal to the High Court.
She contended that section 204(2A) is satisfied if there is good reason for her failure to appeal within the initial 21 day period, and that any delay thereafter was irrelevant. Once the Judge had found that there was good reason for not getting an appeal into Court within the main period, he was bound to give her permission to appeal.
Sir Peter Lane did not accept that argument, noting that section 204(2A)(b) uses the words “any delay”, and those words could not relate to the initial 21 day period:
The Court may give permission for an appeal to be brought after the end of the period allowed by subsection (2), but only if it is satisfied…. (b) where permission is sought after that time, that there was good reason for the applicant’s failure to bring the appeal in time and for any delay in applying for permission.”
The Court was thus directed to ask whether there was any delay in asking for permission to appeal out of time when considering an application for an extension of time which is made after the initial 21 day period.
Whether there was a good reason was a finding of fact, with which the appellate Judge would not lightly interfere.
Sir Peter further noted that this was in the context of homeless applications, where it is incumbent on an applicant to act promptly. An Appellant cannot just sit back and do nothing without fear of consequences.
Appeal dismissed.
Catherine Rowlands acted for the successful Respondent in this case.
