ABC and another -v- London Borough of Sutton (anonymity order and application for judicial review)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024-LON-001672

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 August 2024

Before:
David Pittaway KC

Between:
(1) ABC
(2) XYZ
(a protected child, by his Litigation Friend ABC)
-v-
London Borough of Sutton
and
Encompass LATC Ltd

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the First Defendant

ORDER by DAVID PITTAWAY KC

  1. The identity of the First and Second Claimants as parties to these proceedings are protected and shall not be published.
  2. The First Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “ABC” and the Second Claimant as “XYZ”. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimants or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants without the leave of the Court. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this paragraph of this order.
  3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the First Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £1200.
  5. Paragraph 2 above is a final costs order unless within 14 days of the date of this Order the First Claimant files with the Court and serves on the Defendant a notice of objection setting out the reasons why he should not be required to pay costs (either as required by the costs order, or at all). If the First Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the Defendant may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response. The First Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant’s response is served, file and serve submissions in reply.
  6. The directions at paragraph 3 apply whether or not the First Claimant seeks reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review.
    (a) If an application for reconsideration is made, the Judge who hears that application will consider the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 3 above together with such further oral submissions as may be permitted, and decide what costs order if any, should be made.
    (b) If no application for reconsideration is made or if an application is made but withdrawn, the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 3 above will be referred to a Judge and what order for costs if any, should be made will be decided without further hearing.

Reasons

  1. I have made the anonymity orders as requested.
  2. This is a claim for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision that the Claimants are not ‘homeless’ within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act. The substance of the claim is that the Defendant has failed to make reasonable adjustments to its policy on assessing duties owed to homeless applicants to reflect the Claimants’ disabilities. The Defendant’s decision on homelessness is contained in the letter to the First Claimant dated 16 February 2024. The First Claimant has lodged a appeal against this decision in the County Court.
  3. The Defendant accepts that the Claimants are disabled and that the First Claimant is entitled to rely on matters arising out of her and her two children’s disabilities in support of her section 204 appeal. The Defendant submits that the section 204 appeal is an alternative remedy and this application should be dismissed.
  4. I accept the Defendant’s submission that the proper forum for this matter is the section 204 appeal in the County Court. I accept the Defendant’s submissions that, in the context of this case, issues relating to the application of the Equality Act can be considered in those proceedings.
  5. Further I accept the Defendant’s submissions that the joining of Second Claimant is inappropriate in that he has not made an section 204 HA 1996 application for housing and is not the subject of the decision under challenge nor is there any need for the Defendant’s agent, Encompass LATC Ltd to be an interested party.
  6. Accordingly I have refused the application and not made the consolidation orders requested.