ABC -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/2794/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
17 August 2022
The Honourable Mr Justice Freedman
The Queen on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
UPON considering the application for interim relief and permission to apply for judicial review and the application for urgent consideration on the papers
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Freedman
1. The application for interim relief is adjourned and will be listed for a one hour hearing in court (“the Hearing”) in accordance with the following timetable. The hearing will be listed for a hour hearing on first convenient date from 7 September 2022.
2. The Claimant may by 4pm on Tuesday 23 August 2022 provide further evidence to provide further particulars in respect of the evidence relating to the accommodation.
3. The Defendant shall provide summary grounds of resistance by 4pm on Wednesday 31 August 2022 and any evidence on which it relies.
4. The parties shall file and serve skeleton arguments not less than 2 days before the Hearing.
5. The parties are to provide a written estimate within 3 working days of service of this Order if they disagree with the estimate at 1 above.
6. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, the Claimant shall be anonymous in these proceedings and referred to as ‘ABC’ His wife shall be referred to as ‘DEF’ and their child shall be referred to as “GHI”. This order is made until reconsideration of it at the return date or earlier hearing.
7. Save as provided for in this order, the standard directions in CPR Part 54 shall apply.
8. Costs reserved
9. Liberty to the parties to apply to discharge or vary this order on 48 hours’ notice during the working week.
10. Liberty to apply by any person affected by the order as to anonymity to discharge that part of the order.
11. The Claimant claims that the Defendant in breach of statutory duty has failed to provide to him and his family adequate accommodation. In pre-action correspondence, the Defendant has stated that the accommodation provided is adequate and she denies the alleged breach of statutory duty.
12. The Claimant seeks an urgent mandatory order providing accommodation, and seek such an order pending the hearing of the application for interim relief.
13. The Court is not prepared to accede to that application. It is not appropriate to make such a mandatory order on without notice basis. Without hearing from both sides, the Court does not have a sufficient degree of assurance that a mandatory order, if made, would not be set aside or not continued at an on notice hearing.
14. Although there is an urgency, the case is not so urgent that a hearing must take place without the Defendant first having a full opportunity to make submissions.
15. The Court is concerned that the allegations of inadequate accommodation may after a contested hearing be found to be lacking in particularity. A short opportunity is provided to the Claimant to provide voluntarily such particularity on a short timetable. This will also assist the Defendant in providing its response.
16. Without having formed any view about the merits of the case, the housing circumstances of the Claimant and the family require urgent consideration, particularly having regard to the presence at the premises of a young child born in March 2022.