AUG -v- London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000504

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

21 February 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Cavanagh

Between:

The King on the application of
AUG

-v-

London Borough of Croydon

Order

On an application for interim relief

Following the Order made by Collins Rice J on 19 February 2025

And following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Cavanagh

  1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), anonymity is granted in the terms of the Schedule appended to this order.
  2. The Defendant will, until final determination of the Claimant’s application for judicial review or further order, provide the Claimant with leaving care support as if he qualifies for such support under section 23CA of the Children Act 1989, notwithstanding that the Claimant will attain the age of 25 on 26 February 2025.
  3. Liberty to apply to vary or set aside this order upon 48 hours’ notice to the other party.
  4. Costs reserved.

Schedule

  1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4) there shall be no publication in any newspaper or other media or other disclosure of any name, address, image or other information tending to identify the Claimant in relation to his involvement in these proceedings.
  2. In any publication or broadcast relating to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be known by the letters “AUG”.
  3. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the Statement of Case, Judgment or Order from the Court records only if a Statement of Case, Judgment or Order has been anonymised such that:
    a. The Claimant is referred to in those documents as “AUG”.
    b. The address of the Claimant has been deleted from those documents.
    c. For the purpose of this claim, including any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other document, the Claimant shall be known by the letters “AUG”.
  4. In so far as any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other documents to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A – D does not comply with paragraph 3 above, the Claimant’s Solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of any such document adjusted so that it does comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant original; and the originals are then to be retained by the Court in a sealed envelope marked “not to be opened without the permission of a Judge or Master of the King’s Bench Division”.
  5. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, providing that any such application is made on notice to the Claimant’s Solicitor and that 7 working days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an Application is given. The Court will effect service of the application.

Reasons

  1. This is an appropriate case to grant anonymity. The Defendant does not oppose the application.
  2. This claim for judicial review concerns a dispute as to whether the Defendant is entitled, consistent with its obligations under section 23CA of the Children Act 1989, to cease to provide accommodation and financial support to the Claimant when he reaches the age of 25, on 26 February 2025. The nature of the interim relief sought is that the Claimant should continue to receive accommodation and financial support as though he is entitled to it under section 23CA of the Children Act 1989, pending the outcome of the application for judicial review.
  3. The application for interim relief first came before Collins Rice J on 19 February 2025. She made an order that the Defendant should respond to the application for interim relief by 12 noon today (21 February) and then that the papers would be placed before the Immediates judge.
  4. In a response that was received within the time limit, the Defendant, through counsel, indicated that the Defendant agreed to provide such support until the decision on permission is made. I consider it appropriate to make the order on the basis that it continues until the judicial review proceedings are concluded, or further order. This way, the default position will be that the interim relief continues until the substantive hearing, if leave is granted. This will save the parties the cost and inconvenience of another potential application for interim relief. I have granted liberty to apply.
  5. The Defendant, understandably, asks that permission be determined as soon as possible, and has indicated that it will file the SFG 5 days before the deadline. I have been provided with a draft order from the Claimant which makes provision for expedition. I agree that this matter should be determined swiftly, if at all possible, but the pressures of other cases before the Administrative Court, most of which have a degree of urgency, is such that I do not consider it appropriate to make an order which would in effect enable this case to jump the queue for consideration of the permission application. I have therefore declined to grant expedition.