ARB -v- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

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

23 January 2025

Before:

HHJ Emma Kelly

Between:

The King on the application of
ARB

-v-

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council


Order

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE EMMA KELLY

1. 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 ARB.
(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.
(e) A copy of this order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR 39.2(5).
(f) The Claimant shall and the Defendant may by 4pm on 31 January 2025 file written submissions addressing whether it is appropriate for an anonymity order to remain in place.

2. Litigation Friend
(a) By 4pm on 31 January 2025 the Claimant’s legal representatives must file a certificate of suitability in form N235.
(b) All steps taken to date, including this order, shall have effect notwithstanding the absence of a litigation friend.

3. Extension of time
(a) The Claimant shall by 4pm on 31 January 2025 either apply to extend the time for filing the claim form or provide written submissions explaining why she contends the claim was filed in time.

4. Court’s own initiative
(a) This order has been made of the Court’s own initiative. Any party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed with any such application to be made not more than 7 days after the date on which the order was served on the party making the application.

    REASONS

    1. Anonymity: The Claimant’s legal representatives have not made an application for an anonymity order notwithstanding that the claim involves the personal medical information of the Claimant child, information as to which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. An anonymity order has been made of the Court’s own initiative to protect the Claimant in the interim but will be reviewed on receipt of written submissions from the parties.

    2. Litigation Friend: The Claimant is a child and requires a litigation friend. Whilst the Claimant envisages that her father will act as litigation friend, no certificate of suitability in form N235 has been filed. The Court therefore has no certification from the father that he consents to and is a suitable person to act as required by CPR 21.5(4) and 21.4(3). The Claimant’s legal representatives should consider whether the Claimant’s father is the appropriate litigation friend given that he appears to have a direct financial interest (returning to work) in the outcome of the claim. No matters of substantive have yet been determined in this claim such that it is appropriate to regularise the steps taken to date without a litigation friend. A litigation friend is however required as a matter of urgency.

    3. Extension of time: The documents on the Court file suggest the claim was filed out of time and that no application to extend time has been made. CPR 54.5(1) requires that a claim be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. The decision under challenge is dated 22 July 2024. The claim form appears to have been filed on 28 October 2024, thus 6 days after the permitted 3-month longstop period. No application for an extension of time has been made to date.