AOJ -v- London Borough of Islington (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1871/2023

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

11 August 2023

Before:

David Pittaway KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
AOJ (by his Litigation Friend)

-v-

London Borough of Islington

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 filed by the Defendant
ORDER by DAVID PITTAWAY KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r 39.2(4) and/or the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Claimant in this action shall have anonymity until further order. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Claimant. Pursuant to CPR r.5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court records, only if the statement of case, judgment or order from the court has been anonymised. In the case title, the Claimant’s name shall be replaced by the initials ‘AOJ. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of Court proceedings.
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  3. The hearing of the claim is expedited and shall be listed for hearing in week commencing 11 September 2023, or as soon thereafter as the court can accommodate the hearing, with a time estimate of one day. If the parties disagree with this time estimate they shall provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order.

Observations

  1. The claim is clearly suitable for anonymity order where the Claimant may be a child and may suffer from Special Needs.
  2. The Claimant’s case is that the claim concerns a novel and important issue of establishing age as a precedent fact for local authorities to discharge their duties under the Children and Families Act 2014 (‘CAFA 2014’) to children and young people in their area who may have special educational needs and disabilities (‘SEND’).
  3. The Defendant’ s case is that it carried out a reasonable investigation into AOJ’s age in the circumstances and decided he was at least aged 25 in October 2022. Its assessment was Merton-compliant as a brief or short-form assessment and it saw no need to carry out a fuller assessment at the time, with regard to the CA89, and has not seen any need to do so.
  4. On the face of the Statement of Facts and Grounds, Summary Grounds of Defence and Reply, I am satisfied that there is a reasonably arguable case as to whether the Defendant acted unlawfully in failing to carry out a lawful investigation, including into whether the Claimant has special needs.

Case management directions

  1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 14 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 parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than one 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.
  4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  5. The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. 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.
  7. CPR 2.11 shall not apply to these proceedings