BDH -v- London Borough of Lambeth (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001008

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 April 2004

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King
on the application of
BDH
(by her litigation friend BMT)

-v-

London Borough of Lambeth

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name and the name of her Litigation Friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BDH; and

(iii) the Claimant’s Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as BMT.

(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 the Claimant’s Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend 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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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.

  1. Litigation Friend: BMT is appointed to act as litigation friend to the Claimant.

3. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 15 April 2025.

(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 22 April 2025.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review within 7 days thereafter and, if permission is granted, for further directions for the expedited hearing of the substantive claim.

  1. Liberty to both parties to apply on 24 hours’ notice to the other party.

REASONS

Anonymity: The Claimant is a highly vulnerable teenager. For the reasons given in the claim papers, the public interest in open justice is overridden by the need to protect her interests. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Abridgement of time: Whether permission to apply for judicial review should be granted of the decision under challenge needs to be decided quickly in this case. Rather than pre- empt the future timetable for the substantive hearing, should permission be granted, it makes better sense to leave that to be directed by the judge following consideration of the Defendant’s summary response to the claim. I have nevertheless stated that any substantive hearing must be expedited. If the judge considering the question of permission on the papers considers that a rolled up hearing is justified in this case, they will be able to order accordingly.

Signed: Mr Justice Mould
Dated: 04/04/24