AD and another -v- London Borough of Redbridge (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002336

In the High Court of Justice
Kings Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 September 2025

Before:

HHJ Sylvia de Bertodano
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) AD (a child, by his litigation friend, CHT)
(2) MTD

-v-

London Borough of Redbridge

Order

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 Statement of Facts and Grounds, Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER by HHJ de BERTODANO sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Anonymity is ordered in respect of the Claimants.
  2. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  3. The hearing of the claim shall be listed on the next available date with a time estimate of 3 hours. If the parties disagree with this time estimate they shall provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this Order.

Anonymity

  1. (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) Both Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;
    (ii) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as AD; (iii) the Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as MTD.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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.
    (e) This order will be reviewed after final determination of the claim.

Observations

  1. The First Claimant is a 13 year old boy who suffers from Angelman Syndrome, a rare genetic condition which causes severe physical and learning disabilities. He is unable to stand and walk independently, cannot maintain his own hygiene, and is dependent on his parents for supervision at all times, including when he sleeps. He lives with the Second Claimant who is his father, his mother and his 16 year old sister and eight year old brother.
  2. Since October 2013 the family has been living in the same 2 bedroom house. This is clearly inappropriate for the family of 5, and the family has been on the Defendant’s housing register for 14 years. In 2021 they were placed into Priority Band 2 under the Defendant’s Housing Allocation Policy due to urgent medical need, with a requirement for a four-bedroom property.
  3. On 24 April 2025 the Defendant’s Children With Disabilities Team produced a Child and Family Assessment concluding that AD had “unmet need which is severely impacting the functioning of this family”. It recommended urgent re-housing to a four-bedroom property.
  4. On 9 May 2025 the Defendant informed the Claimant by letter that no suitable long term accommodation was available or “in the pipeline”; and that they would only consider properties for the Claimant that were already wheelchair accessible and did not require adaptation.
  5. On 11 August 2025 the Claimant was offered temporary accommodation at an address at 211 Huntsman Road. It is not yet clear whether this property is suitable to meet AD’s needs.
  6. The Claimant applies for judicial review on the following grounds:
    Ground 1. In its treatment of the Claimants, the Defendant has acted irrationally and/or breached its statutory duties in relation to the welfare of children. In particular:
    Ground 1.1. The Defendant has acted irrationally in respect of its Part VI duties by doing nothing more than placing the Claimants within Priority Band 2 on the Housing Register where they have no realistic prospect of being rehoused, with the result that AD’s need for long-term housing will continue to be unmet for the foreseeable future; and failing to formulate a plan to otherwise meet AD’s unmet needs.
    Ground 1.2. In so doing, the Defendant has also breached its obligations under the Children Act 1989 (“CA89”) and the Children Act 2004 (“CA04”) (together, the “Children Acts”).
    Ground 2. The Defendant’s Housing Allocation Policy breaches s.166A HA96, and/or the Defendant has failed to follow its own published policy, in that the Defendant has failed to produce, publish, maintain or monitor an Annual Lettings Plan setting out, inter alia, targets to meet the unmet housing needs of specific groups.
    Ground 3. The Defendant’s practice of not considering whether to offer properties that could be adapted to meet the needs of the Claimants’ disabled household is contrary to relevant duties under the Equality Act 2010 and/or the Claimants’ rights under Article 14 read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “ECHR”). Further, insofar as the Defendant has a practice or policy of not considering whether properties might be adapted for disabled applicants, that practice or policy is itself contrary to the Equality Act and/or Article 14 read with Article 8 ECHR.
  7. It is arguable that the Defendant has acted irrationally in failing to place the First Claimant within Priority Band 1 on the Housing Register, and in failing to formulate a plan to meet his needs. It is further arguable that the Defendant’s stated practice of not offering properties that could be adapted to the First Claimant’s needs is irrational.
  8. It is arguable that the Defendant’s practice in this respect is incompatible with its duties under the Equalities Act and its obligations under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.
  9. Permission is not granted with respect to Ground 2, given that the Housing Allocation Policy referred to in the Claimant’s Grounds is not yet in force.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Defendant shall, within 21 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 14 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
  3. The case will be heard on the first available date after the expiry of these deadlines, that is five weeks from the date of this order.
  4. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 1 week before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  5. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall 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, shall be lodged with the Court not less than [7] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  8. As permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. Any reconsideration hearing 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.

HHJ Sylvia de Bertodano
9 September 2025