Local government

Housing with security of tenure promised to applicants - reliance on promise and detriment not necessary for enforcement of promiseR (Bibi and Another) v Newham London Borough Council: CA (Lords Justice Schiemann and Sedley and Mr Justice Blackburne): 26 April 2001The applicants and their families were refugees, who had been accepted by Newham as unintentionally homeless.

Newham made promises that suitable housing on a secure tenancy would be provided for them.In allocating places on the housing waiting list to the applicants, Newham did not take the promises into account, and some eight years later the promises had not been complied with.Newham contended that where the expectation was substantive the court could only enforce it if the motive for resiling from it was improper or there had been detrimental reliance on it.

Mr Justice Turner made a declaration that Newham could not renege on its promise and that it was in principle bound to comply with it.

Newham appealed.David Matthias (instructed by the Head of Legal Services, London Borough of Newham) for the London Borough of Newham; Christopher Maynard (instructed by Morgan Hall, Ilford) for Mrs Bibi; Jan Luba QC (instructed by Miles & Partners) for Mr Al-Nashed.Held, allowing the appeal in part, that the law required that any legitimate expectation be properly taken into account in the decision making process which had not been done in the present case and therefore Newham had acted unlawfully; that, although absence of detrimental reliance on a promise would normally be required, there were cases where it was not essential and it did not follow that reliance without measurable detriment could not render it unfair to thwart a legitimate expectation; and that since allocation of accommodation was a matter for the local authority, Newham would be directed to consider the applications for housing on the basis that the applicants had a legitimate expectation that they would be provided with secure accommodation.