BGI and BGD -v- Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000055

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

23 May 2025

Before:

HHJ Worster
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BGI
and
BGD
(Claimants)

-v-

(1) Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
(2) Bath and North East Somerset Council
(Defendants)

and

(1) Chief Constable of West Midlands
(2) Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
(3) Walsall Housing Group Limited
(4) Local Government Ombudsman
(Interested Parties)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision ((CPR 23.12, 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants, the Acknowledgements of Service filed by the Defendants and the Interested Parties, the Summary Grounds of Defence/Resistance filed by the 1st Defendant and the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties, and the Claimants Replies

Order by HHJ Worster sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  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 Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as BGI and BGD.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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;

  1. Permission:

(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

(b) The Claimants applications to amend are refused.

(c) The application is certified as totally without merit.

  1. Costs: The Claimant must pay the 1st and 2nd Defendants costs of preparing Acknowledgements of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, and the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties costs of preparing Acknowledgements of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence. Those costs will be summarily assessed.
  2. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, if they have not done so already, the parties seeking costs are to file and serve Statements of Costs for Summary Assessment.

(b) Within 14 days of the service of a Statement of costs, the Claimants may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 5 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 3 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(c) If the Claimants do not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 3 is a final order and the court will proceed to assess costs on paper.

(d) If the Claimants file and serve a notice of objection in accordance with (a) above:

(i) the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);

(ii) if the other party files and serves on the Claimants submissions in response, the Claimants may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);

(iii) the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;

(iv) any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)) unless the Court specifies another date.

REASONS

  1. By this claim, and the applications to amend it, the Claimants seek wide ranging declaratory relief, and what they describe as corrective orders. The use of judicial review in the circumstances of this case is inappropriate. The claims brought are misconceived in law, lack coherence, and can serve no useful purpose. For a variety of reasons, the claim is bound to fail.

The claim against Walsall MBC (“Walsall”)

  1. The claim against Walsall arises from its alleged failure to deal lawfully with the Claimants request for rehousing in June 2016. That request followed a Threat to Life Notice issued to BGI by the West Midlands Police dated 19 June 2016, which followed incidents of anti-social behaviour and other malicious acts directed at BGI at his home address in Walsall. It appears that Walsall responded to the Claimants’ request for housing, and offered BGI alternative accommodation on an emergency basis. That offer was turned down, and the Claimants made inquiries with other housing providers.
  2. The Claimants appear to have made no further contact with Walsall until the Pre Action Protocol letter dated 25 February 2025. That gave Walsall no time to respond, for the claim form is dated 25 February 2025 (and was issued on 3 March 2025).
  3. The claim against Walsall is very significantly out of time, and fails for that reason alone. Claims for Judicial Review must be brought promptly and in any event within 3 months of the decision challenged, or (as here) within 3 months of when grounds for Judicial Review first arose. The Claimants case might be framed as a continuing breach of duty, but (i) if there was a relevant duty, it arose in 2016, and (ii) if Walsall’s failure to make further attempts to house the Claimants is a breach of duty for which a public law remedy may be claimed, the grounds for bringing such a claim arose many years ago.
  4. Even if the claim against Walsall were made in time, the claim faces serious problems, and permission would have been refused. Walsall’s duties under the Housing Act 1996 are breached only if the accommodation it offers is not suitable. The Claimants reasons for refusing that offer related to issues which do not on the face of it, render the accommodation offered unsuitable. If the Claimants considered that the accommodation offered was unsuitable, the Housing Act 1996 provided adequate remedies for the review and appeal of that decision.
  5. The additional grounds for Judicial Review relied upon by the Claimants, and for which permission to amend is sought, do not add anything to the claim which can cure those problems. At their highest they are allegations of failings many years ago. It is unclear what the Claimants say Walsall should have done to facilitate alternative accommodation away from the West Midlands. The claim is bound to fail.

Claims against the Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”)

7. By a further application to amend, the Claimants seek to argue that the decision of the Trust to withdraw mental health support is somehow unlawful, and that there has been a failure to provide support for the Claimants move away from the West Midland area. The Trust are not a Defendant, and whilst I could direct that be made a Defendant, the claim against it has no real prospect of success and or is time barred.

8. The Summary Grounds of Resistance show that far from not supporting the Claimants in respect of housing need, in 2015 and 2018 letters were provided for that purpose. Further, BGI remains under the care of a psychiatrist, and following a complaint the Claimant made in February 2025, there has been the offer of an assessment for a care co-ordinator.

9. Whilst the Claimants are dissatisfied, this is not a case where they can show that a claim for Judicial Review has any real prospect of success. There is no decision to challenge, the Claimants do not identify the legal duty which has been breached, and there is (in any event) nothing unlawful or irrational about the Trusts conduct of this matter, The Claimants want the Trust to assist in the process of finding new accommodation. That is no basis for a claim for Judicial Review. The claim is bound to fail.

      The claim against Bath and NE Somerset Council (“Bath”)

      10. The claim form seeks orders against Bath, and consequently the Court Lawyer ordered that they be added as a Defendant (rather than simply be an Interested Party).

      11. On 11 February 2025, the Claimants contacted Bath with a view to being added to their housing register. The Claimants case is that Bath initially rejected that request because of a lack of local connection. The Claimants then asserted a local connection and complained about the decision; see the letter of 24 February 2025. Bath considered the matter, sought further information and the Claimants were added to Bath’s housing list on 7 March 2025. The Claimants are now able to “bid” for housing in Bath’s area. There is no realistic basis for alleging that Bath have breached any duty toward the Claimants, or that the Court should make the mandatory orders the Claimants seek. Any proceedings against Bath are (at best) premature. This aspect of the claim is bound to fail. Permission to bring proceedings for Judicial Review against Bath is refused.

        The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (“WMP”)

        12. WMP is not a Defendant. In his Acknowledgement of Service, he confirms the issues which arose which led to the Osman notice in 2016. He also confirms that the records held by the Police show no further reports of problems of such issues after 2016. That fact alone is confirmation of the lack of merit in the Claimants proceeding with claims for Judicial Review so long after the event.

        13. WMP applies for an order that he be removed as a party. He appears to have been joined because one of his constables issued the Threat to Life notice in 2016. The Claimants oppose that application, but whilst the Police may be able to provide evidence as to the current level of risk to the Claimants if they remain in their current accommodation, there is no need for them to be a party to the proceedings. Had the proceedings continued, I would have granted WMP’s application that he be removed as a party.

        14. The application for anonymity is granted. There is no evidence of the current level of risk, but given the nature of the historical threat, it would be very unfortunate if identifying BGI now were to lead to any renewed threat.

        15. I have considered the various applications the Claimants make to amend and their further evidence in the course of determining permission. I am conscious that the Claimants act in person and are not lawyers. If these applications gave rise to an arguable claim, then I would have considered granting them. But they do not, and consequently the applications are refused.

        16. The Claimants have brought these proceedings. They have failed to engage in the Pre Action Protocol, meaningfully or at all, and have sought to use them as a means of pursuing their claims for rehousing. The usual orders for costs should follow.

            Signed: HHJ Worster
            Date: 23 May 2025