Background
Alicja Balcerak sought urgent judicial review after Wandsworth ended emergency accommodation that had been provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She characterised the ending of that accommodation as an abrupt unlawful eviction and applied for an interim injunction requiring the council to provide new section 17 accommodation.
Thornton J required a swift response from the council. Fordham J then refused interim relief on 18 September 2026, concluding that there was no viable legal challenge. The evidence indicated that the short-term accommodation had been provided as a safety net while Ms Balcerak engaged with the homelessness system, and that it was lawful for the council to expect that engagement.
The council’s social-worker witness statement said that emails seeking information from Ms Balcerak on 16 and 17 September had received no “substantive response.” Ms Balcerak later pointed out that she had replied on 17 September. Although this did not alter the refusal of interim relief, it raised a separate question about the council’s duty of candour.
The Court’s Holding
Fordham J held that Wandsworth had breached its duty of candour. It could properly maintain that Ms Balcerak’s response did not supply the requested information and was therefore not substantive. But it could not omit any reference to the response it had received, or fail to exhibit it, leaving the court unable to assess that characterisation for itself.
The omission was especially serious in an urgent application decided by an Immediates Judge, on a timetable that effectively gave the council the last word. The court noted that it had itself relied on the witness statement when referring to “unanswered” emails and apparent non-engagement. Nonetheless, the breach did not undermine the substantive decision to refuse interim accommodation.
The court accepted there was no intention to mislead, that the materials were prepared under severe time pressure, and that the council had made an unreserved apology. It declined to award costs, damages, or any other monetary remedy: the underlying challenge had failed, the breach caused no loss or costs, and the duty of candour is not itself actionable in damages.
Key Takeaways
- A public authority cannot describe a response as non-substantive while withholding the response itself from the court.
- The duty of candour is particularly exacting in urgent judicial-review proceedings where the claimant has no effective opportunity to reply.
- A candour breach does not itself revive an unmeritorious substantive claim or create an entitlement to damages or costs.
Why It Matters
The judgment is a pointed reminder that parties in public-law litigation must present a fair and complete account, including material that may qualify their own evidence. This is not cured by assuming the court can reconstruct the position from correspondence sent elsewhere.
At the same time, the decision distinguishes a procedural candour failure from the merits of the underlying claim. A breach may warrant public judicial criticism without changing the substantive result or justifying a monetary remedy.