By Dominic Casciani BBC News Online community affairs reporter

The Court of Appeal has ruled the Home Office was right to refuse benefits to an asylum seeker under controversial legislation introduced this year. BBC News Online explains what it means.

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The Court of Appeal has ruled in the case of a Malaysian asylum seeker, "T", who was refused support under a controversial piece of legislation called Section 55.

This allows the home secretary to refuse support to asylum seekers who do not declare themselves "as soon as reasonably practicable".

Home Secretary David Blunkett says it prevents abuse of the system by people living here clandestinely.

In practice, it potentially includes about two-thirds of all asylum arrivals because most of them do not apply until they have been in the country for a few days.

So what happened in this case?

T arrived in the UK from Malaysia in 4 March 2003. He did not apply for asylum until 10 March. Immigration officials denied him support and he was soon sleeping rough at Heathrow Airport.

T's lawyers argued their client had been left destitute by the Home Office.

That destitution was worsening and this, they argued, meant he was being subjected to "inhuman and degrading treatment" in breach of human rights legislation.

What did the courts say?

In its judgement, the Court of Appeal said the test of what makes destitution a breach of human rights is extremely high.

It ruled that although T was homeless, he had access to food, shelter and some money within Heathrow Airport and therefore his condition was not inhuman or degrading.

So what does this mean in practical terms?

The Home Office is delighted it has won an important test case on asylum and human rights.

The judgement bolsters its flagship 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act which ministers believe is reducing unfounded and asylum applications.

"This judgement helps clarify where, in deciding [human rights] considerations, the threshold lies and that a claim of destitution will not necessarily be a deciding factor," says immigration minister Beverley Hughes.

"Nonetheless, those refused support have always been able to apply to have their case reconsidered if their circumstances change and we will continue to re-examine those cases in line with this judgement."

But the situation may become more complicated because the Court of Appeal has made clear it has not laid down a "simple test" to finally end the legal row.

So what do we expect to happen?

Almost 5,000 asylum seekers have been refused support due to Section 55 since January this year. Applications to judicially review the Home Office are stacking up at the High Court.

Hammersmith Community Law Centre, a London practice with long experience in asylum work, estimates there are some 200 cases now pending.

What is happening to all these people being refused support?

Many of these people simply drop off official radars. But a host of refugee support organisations say many asylum seekers are relying on charity from churches, mosques and other members of their own communities.

The Refugee Council itself has had asylum seekers sleeping on its own doorstep. Housing organised by the Refugee Council is funded by government so it says it cannot support anyone who has been turned down by Section 55.

So what about processing their cases?

The Home Office has a target of an initial asylum decision within two months.

But in the case of T heard at the Court of Appeal, he is still waiting for his case interview - six months after first arriving in the UK.

This situation is not unusual and is creating greater pressures within the asylum/refugee support networks who say they simply cannot afford to house people indefinitely while the Home Office processes cases.

"It makes no sense at all for the Home Office to spend several hours interviewing someone about what colour lorry they travelled in to get to Britain, and then leave them to beg on the streets for several months instead of promptly interviewing them about their claim for asylum," says Sheona York of the Hammersmith Law Centre.

Have the courts anything to say on this?

The courts have not been asked to rule on whether the Home Office is tackling cases quickly enough - and given the Court of Appeal's reluctance to rule entirely in favour or against Section 55 nor are they likely to.

But in the case of T, the Court of Appeal had strong words for the Home Office. During the evidence of the case, it became clear to the judges that T had mental health problems that suggested his case was unfounded because he was delusional.

"It is relevant to ask why, instead of becoming involved in the present convoluted dispute about benefits, nobody seems to have confronted that, at least so far as the evidence before us goes, T does not seem to have a viable asylum claim," said the three lord justices in the Court of Appeal.

"There are fast-track procedures which might have been used to deal with this case."