AH -v- Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2023-LDS-000286
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court at Leeds
9 January 2024
Before:
HH Judge Davis-White KC (sitting as a Judge of the Administrative Court)
Between:
The King on the application of
AH
-v-
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Order
UPON the application by Claim form of the Claimant for permission to proceed with judicial review and an application for interim relief including (without limitation) a mandatory interim injunction that the Defendant provide accommodation to the Claimant as a child under the Children Act 1989
AND UPON HEARING Ms Ishrat Mahmud counsel for the Claimant and Mr Matthew Stanbury counsel for the Defendant
AND UPON READING the evidence and the two hearing bundles provided
AND This being the Second Order in these proceedings made on this day, the first being and being described as “Consent Order”
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused;
2. The application for a mandatory injunction is refused;
3. Paragraph 6 of the Order herein dated 3 January is continued in the varied form set out below and made a final order:
“(1) The Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
(2) There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings (including without limitation, any listing and any skeleton arguments) in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the letters “AH”.
(3) Pursuant to s11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must not be any 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.
(4) Pursuant to CPR r5.4C(4):
(a)the parties must, when filing any statement of case also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant;
(b Unless the Court grants permission under CPR r5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case. Any application for such permission shall be made on notice to the parties or shall otherwise contain an explanation of why notice has not been and is not proposed to be given.”
4. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £2,000;
5. The Claimant being a party in receipt of public funding has the benefit of costs protection pursuant to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount that the Claimant shall be directed to pay is to be determined on application by the Defendant pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013;
6. The Claimant’s publicly funded costs shall be the subject of detailed assessment.
7. Liberty to the parties to apply to within 7 days of service of this Order upon them to apply to vary discharge or stay Paragraph 3 hereof which was made without being raised at the hearing. General liberty to apply as regards that paragraph.