AA -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001970

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

26 February 2025

Before:

David Pittaway KC

Between:

The King on the application of
AA

-v-

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY David Pittaway KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as AA.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s
Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY David Pittaway KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  2. Case Management Directions:
    (a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
    (b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
    (c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
    (d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard copy versions of the hearing bundle.
    (e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 3 hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) I largely accept the submissions in the Claimant’s reply that the four Grounds pass the threshold test for the reasons given.
(2) Ground 1 is reasonably arguable, namely, a failure to have regard to relevant information when discharging functions under section 189A , that the Defendant did not consider sufficiently or at all the SHP assessment that the Claimant’s ‘support and housing needs can’t be adequately met through private rented sector’.
(3) Likewise Ground 2, a failure to discharge Tameside duty of inquiry when discharging functions under section 189A. It is arguable that the Defendant was on notice of the possibility that the Claimant’s needs could not be met in PRS accommodation and should have made enquires of SPS., instead of simply stating that it did not take their email a face value.
(4) Grounds 3 and 4, fettering of discretion by limiting the steps which will be taken to enable the claimant to have and retain suitable, and acting unlawfully when specifying steps to take to enable C to have and retain suitable accommodation. It is reasonably arguable that there is an inconsistency in what is contained in the PHP and the wording in section 189A(4).