Introduction

The case of ZLL, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ([2022] EWCA Civ 1059) presents a significant examination of the boundaries of judicial review in the context of evolving government policies. The appellant, ZLL, a rough sleeper, sought to challenge the termination of the Government's 'Everyone In' policy, arguing that its cessation was executed without adhering to the required duty of transparency. This commentary delves into the comprehensive judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on July 21, 2022, analyzing its implications for public law and the standards governing judicial reviews.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant initiated a judicial review to quash the policies and funding practices that ostensibly ended the Government's 'Everyone In' initiative. This policy was initially designed to ensure the accommodation of all rough sleepers and those at risk of sleeping rough. Fordham J dismissed the original claim, leading to an appeal that was later granted permission under the pretense that it might become academic due to subsequent events.

Upon hearing, the Court of Appeal evaluated whether the appeal remained academic, whether the appellant had targeted a proper decision for judicial review, and the nature of the relief sought. The Court concluded that the appeal was indeed academic and fundamentally flawed, leading to its dismissal. The judgment underscored that the 'Everyone In' policy was part of an evolving strategy, compounded by the introduction of subsequent initiatives like "Protect and Vaccinate" and the Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI), thereby diluting the appellant’s claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key legal precedents to substantiate its reasoning:

• R v SoS for the Home Office ex parte Salem [1991] 1AC 450 (HL): Established the test for determining whether an appeal is academic, emphasizing discretion in hearing such appeals only if they serve the public interest.
• Rahoune v London Borough of Islington [2019] EWCA Civ 2142: Applied the Salem test, reinforcing the narrow scope for admitting academic appeals.
• Hutcheson v Popdog Limited (Practice Note) [2012] 1WLR 782: Highlighted the limited discretion courts have in hearing academic appeals, even outside pure public law contexts.
• R (oao Cort) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 1085 (Admin): Demonstrated the court's stance on academic appeals being context-specific and not broadly applicable.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Court of Appeal's stance that academic appeals must be exceptional and clearly serve the broader public interest, rather than individual grievances without substantial legal significance.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the appellant's claims, identifying three core issues:

1. Whether the appeal was indeed academic due to the settlement of the original claim.
2. Whether the appellant had identified any proper decision by the respondent that was susceptible to judicial review.
3. The nature and appropriateness of the relief sought by the appellant.

The court determined the appeal was academic primarily because the appellant had settled the original claim, eliminating any ongoing dispute. Additionally, the evolving nature of the policies related to rough sleepers meant there was no singular, identifiable decision that the appellant could target. The attempt to seek a declaration was deemed inappropriate as it lacked specificity and was contingent upon unestablished facts.

The judgment emphasized that for an appeal to be heard, there must be a clear, actionable legal issue that transcends the immediate parties and holds significance for future cases. In this instance, the appellant failed to demonstrate such an issue, rendering the appeal without merit.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria that must be met for judicial reviews to proceed, particularly concerning academic appeals. It underscores the necessity for appellants to:

• Clearly identify and target specific decisions made by public authorities.
• Demonstrate that their appeal addresses a legal issue of broader significance beyond personal grievances.
• Ensure that the relief sought is concrete, actionable, and directly related to the alleged wrongdoing.

Consequently, this decision serves as a cautionary exemplar for future litigants, emphasizing the need for precise and substantial claims in challenging public policies through judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they act lawfully, fairly, and within their powers. It serves as a check on administrative decisions, safeguarding individuals' rights against potential governmental overreach.

Academic Appeal

An academic appeal refers to a legal challenge where the original dispute between the parties has been resolved or is no longer relevant by the time the appeal is heard. Such appeals are typically dismissed unless they present a significant legal principle that warrants broader consideration.

Duty of Transparency/Publication

The duty of transparency, also known as the duty of publication, obligates public authorities to openly communicate their policies, decisions, and actions. This ensures accountability and allows individuals to understand and challenge governmental decisions effectively.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in ZLL v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to maintaining high standards for judicial reviews, particularly in safeguarding against frivolous or redundant appeals. By meticulously applying established legal principles and precedents, the court underscored the importance of precise, significant legal challenges in public law. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for future cases, delineating the boundaries within which judicial reviews must operate to be deemed worthy of adjudication.