AH -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

AC-2024-LON-003154

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

28 February 2025

Before:

Hugo Keith KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
AH

-v-

London Borough of Hounslow

Order

Following consideration of the documents filed by the parties, including the Claim form issued on 19 September 2004, the Acknowledgment of Service dated 10 October 2024, the Claimant’s application of 8 November 2024, the written submissions of the parties, and the correspondence with the court:

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that:

  1. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The Claimant shall be referred to as AH in these proceedings. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the name or address of the Claimants, or any other details liable to lead to her identification.
  2. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimants have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
  3. The application for judicial review has been withdrawn. Permission is therefore refused.
  4. The Claimant shall file and serve costs submissions by 4pm on 14 March 2025.
  5. The Defendant shall file and serve costs submissions in reply by 4pm on 28 March 2025.
  6. Submissions shall be limited to two sides of A4.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

  1. This is an application for judicial review, issued on 19 September 2024, of the Defendant’s decisions to have failed, from 7 August 2024, to provide suitable accommodation under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) (ground 1), to have failed (on account of an allegedly inadequate housing needs assessment that was issued on 12 August 2024) to organise an adequate and rational housing needs assessment under section 189A of the Act (ground 2), and to have failed to allow the Claimant to join its housing register under Part 6 of the Act (ground 3).
  2. A number of remedies were sought, including a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation within 21 days. An application for expedition was made on various grounds, as well as an order for anonymity. The order for anonymity was granted administratively, pending order from the court.
  3. Following the issue of the Claim, a further housing needs assessment (“HNA”) and Personalised Housing Plan (“PHP”) were issued on 30 September 2024 (but dated 10 September 2024). These, however, were also objected to.
  4. On 30 September the Defendant notified the Claimant’s solicitors that it had placed the Claimant on its housing register in Band 2 with an effective date of 19 July 2024. On 3 October 2024 (by letter dated 25 June 2024) the Defendant made an offer of accommodation to the Claimant at Rm 2 32 Sonia Gardens, Hounslow, TW5 0LZ. On 4 October the Claimant accepted this offer and moved into the property (although she sought a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to her, which review was to be determined by 15 January 2025).
  5. Correspondence ensued between the parties, in which the Claimant’s solicitors endeavoured to seek agreement on an appropriate order to dispose of the claim. On 10 October 2024, by way of its Acknowledgment of Service, the Defendant confirmed that it did not contest the claim. Following service of the AoS, the Claimant again sought agreement to its proposed order, in which it sought permission and relief on ground 2, the grant of an order for anonymity, and the payment by the Defendant of its costs.
  6. On 19 November 2024 the Claimant filed an Application notice in which she acknowledged that she had obtained the relief sought in respect of grounds 1 and 3 and no longer sought permission in respect of these grounds. The Claimant contended however that Ground 2, in respect of the failure to provide a lawful HNA (and, presumably, the PHP, although no reference is made to this in the N461), remained unresolved on the basis that the extant HNA and PHP were wholly inadequate. The Claimant complained that the Defendant had failed to engage with her in relation to the HNA and PHP, and remained in breach of its duty to provide a lawful assessment.
  7. She sought relief on the papers in the terms set out in the Application notice, in essence that the Defendant produce and serve on the Claimant’s solicitors a lawful assessment and plan pursuant to section 189A of the Act within 14 days from the date of any order and that, in the event of that order being complied with, the Claimant’s application for judicial review should be deemed to have been withdrawn.
  8. In undated submissions, accompanied by a draft order (but provided to the court under cover of an email dated 25 November 2024), the Defendant instead proposed that the Claimant be granted permission to discontinue grounds 1 and 3, that her application for permission on ground 2 be stayed until 15 January 2025 (when the above review was due to be carried out) and be deemed withdrawn if no application to restore is made by 22 January 2025. It also sought agreement that it review, by 4pm on 18 December 2024, the circumstances of the Claimant’s case and notify her of its assessment and seek to agree a revised PHP. It did not object to the application for anonymity. It proposed that the issue of costs be resolved on the papers on the basis of an agreed timetable for the service of submissions. The review by 18 December was subsequently extended to 6 January 2025.
  9. By email of 28 January 2025 the Claimant informed the court that, on 15 January 2025 the Defendant had provided her with an updated version of the HNA and PHP. She invited the court to consider the remainder of the grounds, and therefore the proceedings, withdrawn.
  10. The only remaining issue is that of costs. The Claimant argues that the appropriate order is for the Defendant to pay her costs. The Defendant contends that the parties should file written submissions. I agree with the Defendant. I order that the parties file costs submissions, as ordered above.
  11. I also make the order for anonymity, requested by the Claimant, in place of the order that was made administratively.

Signed: Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Date: 28 February 2025