In a case involving a decision on a council's homelessness duty, the appellant was a refugee who suffered from severe depression, anxiety and PTSD. The council made a decision that the appellant was not vulnerable. It then revised that decision after the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Panayiotou, but still maintained that the appellant was not vulnerable. On appeal, it was successfully argued that the change to the review decision was one of form only and the new approach required by Panayiotou had not been applied. The judge also rejected the council's argument that the comparator to be used when making a vulnerability assessment need not be a robust and healthy person. The judge found that there was sufficient evidence before the review officer to justify a finding that the appellant was vulnerable, and varied the review decision to that effect.
See also the full judgment.