Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns three appeals heard together as the court's first detailed consideration of the power to award damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA"). Each appeal involves claimants who sought asylum in the country and who allege maladministration by defendants in failing to comply with statutory public law duties, resulting in breaches of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"). None of the appeals alleges direct infringement of Article 8 by action but rather failures to take positive action necessary to respect the claimants' rights. The appeals raise common legal issues about the nature of Article 8 rights, duties to take positive action, when maladministration breaches Article 8, the awarding and assessment of damages, and procedural considerations to ensure proportionality of costs.

The first appeal involves a family whose local authority allegedly failed to provide suitable accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948, impairing family life quality. The second appeal concerns an asylum seeker from Libya whose asylum application was mishandled causing delays, inadequate financial support, and psychiatric injury. The third appeal involves an asylum seeker from Angola whose family reunion was delayed, allegedly due to maladministration, infringing family life rights.

Each appeal proceeded through judicial review and related proceedings, with detailed factual findings and legal analyses at first instance, followed by appeals to this court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the nature of Article 8 rights?
2. When does a duty arise under Article 8 to take positive action?
3. In what circumstances does maladministration constitute breach of Article 8?
4. When should damages be awarded?
5. On what basis should damages be assessed?
6. What procedures should be followed to ensure that the costs of obtaining relief are proportionate to that relief?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• In the first appeal, the claimants argued the local authority failed to discharge its statutory duty to provide accommodation meeting special needs, drastically impairing family life, thus breaching Article 8.
• In the second appeal, the claimant contended maladministration in handling his asylum claim caused delays and deprivation of benefits, resulting in psychiatric injury and breach of Article 8 rights.
• In the third appeal, the claimant argued that delays in processing family reunion applications caused by maladministration infringed his right to family life under Article 8.
• Mr Clayton QC submitted that maladministration breaching statutory duties under welfare schemes infringes Convention rights when consequences are serious.

Defendants' Arguments

• The local authority in the first appeal contended it acted reasonably and made efforts to accommodate the family’s needs, denying any Article 8 breach.
• The defendant in the second appeal argued that breach of statutory duty in welfare administration does not automatically infringe Article 8 and that the welfare system provides benefits beyond Convention requirements.
• In the third appeal, the Home Office contended that administrative delays did not amount to a lack of respect for family life and that the delays did not prejudice the ultimate determination of claims.
• Mr Sales submitted that the Convention requires adherence to a minimum uniform standard and that States may provide more generous benefits without raising the standard of obligation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by clarifying the nature of Article 8 rights, emphasizing that they protect individuals from unjustified interference with private and family life, including physical and psychological integrity, but do not impose a general obligation on the State to provide housing or financial support. Positive obligations arise in limited circumstances where there is a direct and immediate link between State action or inaction and the claimant's private or family life.

The court recognized that maladministration can breach Article 8 if it involves culpable failure to act where the claimant's rights are seriously affected and such impact was foreseeable. However, isolated errors or delays without serious prejudice do not suffice. The threshold for breach is high, requiring more than mere maladministration; it must amount to a denial or contradiction of the public authority's statutory duty in flagrant or deliberate circumstances.

Regarding damages under the HRA, the court noted that damages are discretionary and must be "just and appropriate" and "necessary" to afford just satisfaction, reflecting principles from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Damages differ from tort claims, as they are not automatic and must balance individual rights with public interest and resource considerations. The court also highlighted the lack of clear Strasbourg guidance on damages, especially for non-pecuniary harm such as distress or psychiatric injury.

The court addressed procedural concerns, observing that litigation costs in these cases were disproportionately high compared to likely damages awards. It recommended that claims for damages under the HRA for maladministration be pursued primarily through judicial review in the Administrative Court, with preliminary use of internal complaint mechanisms or Ombudsman procedures to ensure proportionality and cost-effectiveness.

Applying these principles to the individual appeals, the court upheld the dismissal of the first and third appeals, finding no breach of Article 8 due to the absence of culpable maladministration causing serious prejudice. In the second appeal, the court found that the judge below erred in concluding that maladministration causing psychiatric harm alone constituted an Article 8 breach where the harm was not reasonably foreseeable. The "egg-shell skull" principle was rejected as part of the test for breach under the HRA or Convention.

Holding and Implications

The court issued the following rulings:

• The first appeal was DISMISSED, affirming that the local authority did not breach Article 8 despite imperfect accommodation provision.
• The second appeal was ALLOWED, overturning the finding of Article 8 breach based on psychiatric harm caused by maladministration not reasonably foreseeable.
• The third appeal was DISMISSED, upholding the conclusion that administrative delays did not amount to breach of Article 8.

The direct effect of this decision is to clarify the high threshold for establishing breaches of Article 8 through maladministration, particularly in welfare and immigration contexts, and to emphasize judicial discretion and proportionality in awarding damages under the HRA. The court signaled that damages for maladministration should generally be modest and that procedural mechanisms should be used to contain litigation costs. No new precedent expanding State obligations under Article 8 was established; rather, the decision reinforces existing limitations and procedural guidance.