[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/206 - Glazebrook v Housing Committee [1999] UR 206 (7 December 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/206.html Cite as: [1999] UR 206

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

7 December 1999

Before: Sir Peter Crill KBE, Commissioner and

Jurats Querée, and Le Brocq

BetweenCatherine Adele GlazebrookAppellant

And the Housing Committee of the States of JerseyRespondent

Application by the Appellant to have the hearing dates of her appeal against decision of the Respondent Committee fixed for 16 and 17 December 1999.

Advocate G Robinson for the Appellant

Advocate A J Belhomme for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER: This is an application by the Appellant in this case to have her appeal expedited and heard next week.

It is not necessary to go into the merits of the appeal, because we are not called upon to express any opinion on that today. It is sufficient to say that it is an appeal against a decision of the Housing Committee, refusing the Applicant the privilege, if I may put it that way, of becoming a qualified person by reason of the hardship that she would suffer in respect of non-qualification under regulation 1(1)(g) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1970.

The grounds of appeal are set out in the Notice of Appeal, and mainly concern the effect on the 9-year-old child, Matthew, should he to have to return to England and leave his present school, St Martin’s Primary School.

We are not here to determine whether the accommodation, at present available to the Appellant with her father and mother, is suitable for an enlarged family, nor are we here to determine whether the illness claimed by the Appellant in respect of her mother has been proved. Those are not matters which we have taken into account in arriving at our decision.

The nub of the matter is that the Appellant has sworn an affidavit which says that Matthew has been offered a place at a school in Canterbury where he had previously been, but that the offer had to be accepted no later than 4 January. If the case were not heard next week, then clearly the offer would lapse and Matthew would have to remain at St Martin’s School pending the hearing of the case and any possible appeal thereafter. Should the Plaintiff lose at first instance, and lose again on appeal, the position would be that all the problems set out in the doctor’s reports, which we have read carefully, would still be there to be faced.

If the case is heard next week and the Appellant loses she will then be faced with taking an immediate decision to take the child away - contrary to the medical evidence that we have read - and with settling in England so that the child can attend school near Canterbury, with which he has some earlier connections.

On the other hand, of course, there would be the trauma if the case were heard later, with a possible appeal; in which case the child might have to be brought back. It is almost an intractable problem which this Court cannot really solve. The Court has to ask itself this question: Is it right that this appeal should be heard as quickly as possible in order that the mother can make a decision regarding this child?

Either way, it is not going to be one hundred percent satisfactory; we accept that; but in our opinion we think the case should be heard. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced by Mr Belhomme, first, that he might find it difficult to get ready in time. The contentions of the Committee were in fact filed in November of this year, and they are very full and we have read them. It seems to us that it would not require a great deal of time to get ready for the hearing. The same problem, we were told, applies to Miss Robinson, who has been on leave, and has to start from scratch today preparing for next week.

Secondly, it is apparent to us that the Housing Committee have not been taken by surprise in any way. Thirdly, in our opinion, this is the kind of case mentioned by Le Gros which requires expedition.

It only remains for the Court to consider two things: do we have the power to order the case to be heard? There is no question - on the authority of Warwick -v- Callaghan (19 July 1991) Jersey Unreported - that we do, and secondly, should we set aside the fact that the procedural niceties have not been followed.

Since we are satisfied that this is a case which requires expedition, we do not think that the procedural niceties and formalities should overrule that finding, and accordingly we order that the case will proceed next Thursday and Friday, 16 and 17 December.

Mr Belhomme, if you were thinking of appealing against this Court’s decision, leave to appeal is refused.

Authorities

Warwick -v- Callaghan ( 19^th July, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

Warwick -v- Callaghan (25^th July, 1991) Jersey Unreported. CofA