England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Jackson)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday 17th October, 2001

1. SIR MURRAY STUART-SMITH: This is an application by Mr Moore for permission to apply for judicial review against the decision of the London Rent Assessment Committee which increased his rent to £50 a week.

2. The claimant lived for many years at 256 Croxted Road in London, but he vacated the premises in October 2000. In December 1997 the landlord applied to the rent officer to increase the rent for the flat, proposing a figure of £50 a week. In April 1998 the rent officer increased the rent from £28 to £32 a week. In May Mr Moore referred the rent officer's decision to the Rent Assessment Committee, and on 11th December there was to have been a hearing before the Rent Assessment Committee; but it was adjourned on the request of the claimant.
3. On 9th March the Rent Assessment Committee reached a decision increasing the rent from £28 to £39 a week with effect from 9th March. The claimant was not present at that hearing. He applied for a judicial review. Latham J granted it and quashed the order on the basis that Mr Moore was not present.
4. On 16th May Mr Moore wrote to the Rent Assessment Committee withdrawing his objection to the rent registered by the rent officer, but the landlord refused to agree to the withdrawal of the matter which had been referred to the Rent Assessment Committee.
5. In June 2000 the Rent Assessment Committee refused to permit the applicant to withdraw the reference which had been made to the Committee in the absence of consent from both sides. On 18th July the landlord obtained an order for possession to take effect from 15th September 2000.
6. On 7th August Mr Moore applied to the Rent Assessment Committee to adjourn the forthcoming hearing which was scheduled to take place on 10th August. The note which was signed by Mr Moore of that application for an adjournment was in these terms:

"His reasons for making this request are:

1) in very poor health.

2) Landlord has obtained possession for 15 September 2000.

3) Mr Moore wishes to contest the refusal to withdraw his objection against the rent officer's assessment."

7. The Rent Assessment Committee refused to adjourn the matter and, having heard evidence, they increased the rent to £50 a week as from 10th August.
8. Mr Moore sought to challenge that decision. The grounds upon which he challenged it can be grouped under three heads. The first was that after the decision of the original Rent Assessment Committee was quashed by Latham J in the High Court the matter was not specifically referred by the High Court back to the Rent Assessment Committee, that in effect therefore they had no jurisdiction and when Mr Moore withdrew his reference then the matter should have come to an end. That is a matter which he raises again in this court.
9. In my judgment that submission is not correct. I agree with what Jackson J said when the matter came before him on an oral hearing. The position was that the matter having been referred to the Rent Assessment Committee, their decision was quashed but not the reference. They were therefore seized of the reference and it was their obligation to go ahead with it.
10. The second ground was that the matter should have been adjourned. In addition to the request to which I have just referred, Mr Moore referred to his affidavit in which he said that he was too ill to attend on 10th August. He was suffering from acute vertigo, blurred vision, lack of concentration and pains. He offered to struggle to attend if the hearing would be after lunch. It is not clear when that offer was made, but at any rate the Rent Assessment Committee refused that application. They went to the premises on the afternoon of 10th August and they saw the applicant there.
11. In my judgment, the question of an adjournment was a matter for the discretion of the Rent Assessment Committee. There had been a history of non-attendance and applications for adjournments at the last minute. It was not supported by any medical evidence, and in my judgment it is not a matter which there is any prospect of being reviewed on judicial review.
12. Another point which is raised by Mr Moore is that by the time the matter was eventually heard by the Rent Assessment Committee it was, as he puts it, statute-barred because two years had elapsed since the reference. I cannot accept that. The reason why there was delay was because the matter went before Latham J and the decision having been quashed it, it then had to go back before the Rent Assessment Committee. That does not make the proceedings statute-barred.
13. Mr Moore takes exception to the way in which the Rent Assessment Committee decided the case. He says that they did not pay proper attention to comparable assessments which had been made in relation to similar property in the area. That, in my judgment, is not a matter which can be challenged on judicial review. If a point of law arose there is an appeal from the Rent Assessment Committee to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, and it is not a matter for the consideration of the High Court on judicial review.
14. Finally, Jackson J said that in his view the proceedings were in any event academic because Mr Moore has left the premises. He left the premises in October. The rent assessment, as I have indicated, took effect from 10th August. The reason why Mr Moore had been ordered to give possession was for non-payment of the original rent. There is no evidence before me that the judgment against him had any reference to the rent of £50 a week. Indeed, it is quite plain that it cannot have been because the judgment for possession and for arrears of rent was well before that assessment. I am far from persuaded that so far as Mr Moore is concerned there is any point in pursuing these proceedings at all.
15. So far as the landlord is concerned, although it might have been important for the rent to be registered at £50 a week, it seems to me that probably the whole point is now academic because he has got possession of the premises. He can let them as unfurnished premises under a shorthold tenancy and the registered rent is probably of little, if any, significance to him.
16. I agree with the reasons given by Jackson J for refusing permission to apply for judicial review and the reasons which he gave for that conclusion. I would therefore dismiss this application.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment) ____________________