BGM -v- London Borough of Ealing (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000981

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 April 2025

Before:

Judge Plimmer
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BGM

-v-

London Borough of Ealing

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY JUDGE PLIMMER (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 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 BGM.
      (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 may 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.
    2. Abridgement of time and expedition:
      (a) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge to determine the paper application and expedition within 7 days of the AoS being served and in any event by 29 April 2025.

    REASONS

    (1) Anonymity: The Claimant has obtained refugee status and has health issues. There is sufficient information to suggest that naming the Claimant and/or members of her family may increase their risk and the risk of others, and the claim relies on personal medical information in 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.

    (2) Abridgement of time/expedition: The Claimant and her children have been accommodated in Durham since November 2024, having lived for a lengthy period in London. The Claimant asserts that the accommodation is in a very bad condition and unsuitable to her needs and the needs of the children. In her witness statement she has explained a number of reasons why the family are not coping well with the move including the children experiencing racism at school. The claim was issued for service on 2 April 2025 and placed before me on 15 April 2025. At this stage, it would be impractical to expect the Defendant to provide a helpful and comprehensive AoS within 14 days (tomorrow) as requested by the Claimant. Whilst the Claimant and her children are suffering a detriment it is not so significant as to justify expedition beyond ordering the matter to be placed before a judge within seven days of the AoS being served, to consider both permission and expedition.

    Signed: JUDGE PLIMMER
    Date: 15 April 2025