AAM -v- London Borough of Bromley (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003788

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

14 February 2025

Before:

Mr C M G Ockelton, sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
AAM

-v-

London Borough of Bromley

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Acknowledgments of Service filed by the Defendant and the Interested Party

ORDER BY MR C M G OCKELTON sitting as a judge of the High Court

  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 AAM.
    (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.
  2. Permission to apply for judicial review:
    (a) Permission is granted on grounds 2, 3, 4,and 5.
    (b) Permission is refused on ground 1.
  3. 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.
    (i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

Observations and reasons

(1) Anonymity: 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.
(2) Permission: Ground 1 is out of time. The claimant’s legal team chose to bring these proceedings at the very end of the three months and the consequence of that is that the claim is time-barred in relation to events before the preparation of the Pathway Plan. There is no good reason for extending time to cover a challenge that in this respect has become academic.
(3) The other grounds are in my judgment just arguable.
(4) I have not ordered expedition, noting again that there was a delay of three months on the claimant’s side between the decision under challenge and the issue of these proceedings. If there is more to be said about that, a further application can no doubt be made.