ADN -v- Sheffield City Council (anonymity order)
Case number: AC-2026-MAN-000022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
The King on the application of
Before:
Christopher Kennedy K.C. sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
ADN
-v-
Sheffield City Council
Order
On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, an extension of time and permission to make a claim.
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the court file
ORDER Christopher Kennedy K.C. sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- 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 “ADN”.
(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.
- Adjournment of the remaining applications to a hearing:
(a) The applications for (i) An extension of time (ii) Permission to make a claim and (iii) Interim relief are adjourned to be determined after a hearing.
(b) The hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 2 hours, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
(c) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by the Defendant or any Interested Party;
(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
(iv) this Order;
(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities (no more than ten and preferably fewer) which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.
REASONS
(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker who may be a minor and has asserted that he is a victim of trafficking. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Extension of time: The Claimant is significantly out of time and will need to persuade the court to grant him relief from sanction. That will require consideration not only of the evidence of Ms Gibbons and Ms Whitehead but also of any evidence on which the Defendant may rely. I have considered the matters set out in paragraph 31 of the detailed Statement of Facts and Grounds. I anticipate that the judge hearing the case will be assisted by more specific engagement with the well known Denton criteria and the authorities concerning time limits, litigants in person and public funding in particular, R (Hysaj) v Home Secretary [2015 1 WLR 2472, R (Kigen) v Home Secretary [2016] 1WLR 723.
(3) Interim relief: The relief sought cannot realistically be considered in this case until the issue of the extension of time is determined. It is a mandatory injunction against a Local Authority Defendant and a strong prima facie case needs to be shown.
(4) Adjournment of permission to a hearing: The circumstances of this case make it proportionate to consider the issue of permission alongside the issue of extension of time.