Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: <i>R (on the application of Imam)</i> v <i>London Borough of Croydon</i>

In R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon , the Supreme Court considered the relevance of a local authority's resources on the curial discretion as to remedy in judicial review. This question was addressed in the context of a breach of the authority's duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure suitable accommodation for a person with priority need who is not intentionally homeless. Not only is the case a rare example of the Supreme Court examining remedial discretion and mandatory orders at length, but it also signals the importance of legal reasoning about remedy in judicial review. Remedies form the space where courts often determine what effect, if any, unlawfulness may have. This case note presents an analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning, drawing attention to its implications for certain received views concerning the legal effect of mandatory and quashing orders, and the pragmatic character of its analysis of the relevance of resources.