AK -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-2023-002761

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

1 December 2023

Before:

Anneli Howard KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King on the application of
AK

-v-

Westminster City Council

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 documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of service and Summary Grounds of Resistance (“SGRs”) filed by the Defendant on 17 November 2023

Upon reading the Application Notices and accompanying documents and evidence, including the Reply and additional evidence filed by the Claimant on 10 November 2023 and the response to the applications by the Defendant and further correspondence between the parties

ORDER by Anneli Howard KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Anonymity

  1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted and neither the names of the Claimant nor her child shall be referred to.
  2. Pursuant to CPR r.39(2)(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name of her the claimant and her children or any details leading to their identification. There shall be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to the Claimant and her child by name, and whether orally or in writing, referenced to the letters “AK” and “BK” respectively.
  3. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymized”. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of the pleadings, a Judgment or Order from the court records only if the pleadings, Judgement or Order has been anonymised such that the Claimant and her child are referred to as “AK” and “BK” respectively in those documents and any address has been removed.
  4. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identity creation of the Claimant and her child. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant and her child’s names or address is prohibited.

Permission

5. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

Reply and evidence

6. The Claimant is given permission to rely upon her Reply to the SGRs and the additional accompanying evidence.

Expedition

7. The application for expedition of the hearing of the claim is refused.

Stay

8. The application for a stay pending finalisation of funding is refused.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Defendant shall, within 35 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 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 9(b) above.
  3. The claim shall be listed as soon as the court can reasonably accommodate the hearing, with a time estimate of 1 day. If the parties disagree with this time estimate they shall provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order.
  4. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 3 weeks 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 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 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.

Liberty to Apply

16. Anyone wishing to vary or discharge this Order may make an application to the Court, served on each party.

Observations

I am satisfied that the claim raises sensitive and personal details which must be protected for privacy reasons.
The Claimant’s case meets the arguability threshold for permission.
The claim was issued very close to the 3 month deadline in CPR Part 54. The contested decision was made on 18 June 2023 and the Claim Form is dated and was allegedly issued on 18 September 2023 but was not sealed until 19 September 2023 and served on the Defendants on 22 September 2023. However, even if the was claim was issued 1 day late, I consider that granting an extension of time under CPR r.3.1(2)(a) is appropriate in the exceptional circumstances of this case. I accept the Claimant’s position that the case raises complex and sensitive issues, with an ongoing review being conducted in parallel and the parties engaged in extensive pre-action correspondence and she needed time to raise funding.
Arguably the evidence accompanying the Reply could have been submitted earlier as they pre-date the application. However, they are publicly available documents rather than witness evidence so there in no prejudice to the Defendant in admitting them and the Defendant can respond to the arguments and evidence in its Detailed Grounds.
Expedition is refused as the Claimant has not served a Form N463 nor has she provided sufficient evidence or reasons why this case should be accelerated over other competing claims, which carry equal or greater urgency. I appreciate that the Claimant and her daughter have been separated for over 2 years under what should have been temporary arrangements while the suitability of the accommodation was determined. The Claimant has been offered but refused alternative accommodation, which the Council considers suitable, on the basis that she cannot keep her dog there. The Council does not have properties that are dog-friendly on its list. If it was that imperative for the family to be together, alternative arrangements could be made for the dog.
There is a tension between seeking expedition and a stay at the same time. It is important that this claim is pursued expeditiously so a stay whilst funding is resolved is refused.