BA -v- Family Court at Barnet (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001203
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
11 June 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mr Justice Mould
Between:
The King on the application of
BA
-v-
Family Court at Barnet
and
London Borough of Haringey
(Interested party)
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
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Mould
1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4) neither the Claimant’s nor her child’s identity is to be disclosed.
2. In any publication or broadcast relating to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be known by the letters ‘BA’. 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 or her child in relation to her involvement in these proceedings.
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 court order has been anonymized such that:
i. The Claimant is referred to in those documents as BA;
ii. The address of the Claimant has been deleted from those documents;
iii. For the purpose of this claim, including any statement of case, judgment, order or other document, the Claimant shall be known by the letters BA.
4. In so far as any statement of case, judgment, order or other document
to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A – D does not comply with paragraph 3 above, the Claimant has 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 and that 7 working days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an application is given. The Court will affect service of the application.
6. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
7. The application is certified as totally without merit.
8. A copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice specifying that the Claimant shall be referred to as “BA”.
Reasons
The Claimant applies for permission to bring proceedings for judicial review of orders made by the Defendant on 15 January 2024 and 8 February 2024. Those orders were made by the Defendant in care proceedings brought by the Interested Party under the Children Act 1989.
The jurisdiction of the Administrative Court to hear an application for judicial review of a decision of a county court is limited to a claim of jurisdictional error or gross procedural error on the part of the county court judge or district judge: R(Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 at [34]-[35] applying Sivasubramaniam [2003] 1 WLR 475.
No such error is arguably present in this case. The orders made on 15 January 2024 and 8 February 2024 were plainly made within jurisdiction. Insofar as the Claimant may say that her complaints are founded upon allegedly gross procedural errors on the part of the Defendant, those allegations are entirely without any foundation.
If the Claimant wishes to challenge the merits of the decisions made by the Defendant in the ongoing care proceedings, she may do so either in the care proceedings themselves (see paragraph 7 of the order of 8 February 2024) or by way of an appeal.
This claim for judicial review is totally without merit.
I have made an anonymity order as it appears to me to be appropriate to do so in the interests of protecting the Claimant’s child. I have also named the Defendant correctly in this order.
CPR 54.12(7) APPLIES. THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT REQUEST THAT THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BE RECONSIDERED AT A HEARING.