BLV -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000659

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

10 April 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
BLV

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties

ANONYMITY ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Fordham

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: (a) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and (b) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BLV.
  2. 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.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (a) the parties’ representatives 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; (b) 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.
  4. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  5. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Reasons

I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice. The Claimant is an asylum seeker pursuing an extant appeal. That fact is necessarily part of this judicial review claim. Anonymity is necessary at this stage as a precautionary measure to ensure no exacerbation or compromise of any person’s the position on the asylum appeal. Anonymity may well separately be justified by reference to the need to ventilate details relating to physical and mental health and disability. The position can be reviewed at the substantive hearing.

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties, and having made a separate anonymity order

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Fordham

Permission for Judicial Review

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

Part B of the Reasons

  1. The parties shall have until 4pm on 2 May 2025 to file and serve any submissions in relation to Part B of the Reasons, following which a written judgment may be issued by Fordham J.

Directions

3. The case is to be listed for an expedited one day substantive hearing on the first reasonably available date after 9 July 2025. The case may be heard by a Deputy High Court Judge.

4. The Defendant shall by 4pm on 9 May 2025 file and serve: (a) Detailed Grounds of Resistance (or confirm reliance on the Summary Grounds);
(b) any written evidence that is to be relied on; and (c) a list of authorities relied on.

5. The Claimant shall by 4pm on 9 June 2025 file and serve: (a) any application to rely on evidence in reply; (b) a Hearing Bundle; (c) a skeleton argument; (d) an Authorities Bundle (incorporating the Defendant’s list).

6. The Defendant shall by 4pm on 23 June 2025 file and serve: (a) any application to rely on evidence in reply; (b) a skeleton argument; (c) an Authorities Bundle. Electronic version of the bundles shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. Double-sided hard-copy versions of the bundles shall be lodged.

7. The parties shall by 4pm on 30 June 2025 file: (1) an agreed list of issues; (2) an agreed chronology of events (with page references to the hearing bundle); and (3) an agreed list of essential documents for the advanced reading for the Court (with page references in the hearing bundle to the passages relied on) and a time estimate for that reading.

8. Liberty to apply in writing on notice to vary these directions.

Reasons

PART A

(1) Part A of these Reasons contains findings and reasons.

(2) I am satisfied that the grounds of claim cross the threshold of arguability. The Claimant is deaf and legally blind. He has Usher Syndrome, causing progressive retinitis pigmentosa, leading to night blindness, tunnel vision; which eventually will lead to total blindness. At the heart of the case, as I see it, are issues about isolation and an ability to access information and communicate with others. Whether by reference to s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (legally adequate accommodation), or s.96(2) (legally adequate additional payments), the central concern – as I see it – is about the Defendant’s decisions declining to secure for the Claimant, in the context of his disabilities, access to the internet. Although I am presently sceptical that other freestanding points could succeed, I am not shutting them out.

(3) As to expedition, I am satisfied that this is necessary and appropriate, and that my directions strike an appropriate and proportionate balance. I decline to direct a rolled-up hearing. There is no permission-stage
issue to preserve. There is no reason to deny the stage of Detailed Grounds of Resistance.

PART B

(4) Part B of these Reasons contains provisional views. The Order gives the parties an opportunity to provide submissions. I am minded, having considered any submissions, to issue a brief written judgment.

(5) By emails on 12 and 17 March 2025 the Claimant’s solicitors raised two questions with the Court. They were told told (18 March 2025) that what they had raised would be “up to the Judge to decide” at the permission stage. They were invited to “file submissions”.

(6) A first question was whether it was possible for the claim in this case to be treated as issued on 6 February 2025, rather than 25 February 2025. The concern which was raised was that the first of two impugned decisions made by the Defendant was dated on 6 November 2024 and 6 February 2025 would have been within 3 months. The Senior Manager of Case Progression confirmed that it was not possible to change the filing date. Provisionally, I think the Senior Manager was right. I am aware of no power, case or commentary, dealing with retrospective backdated issuing or sealing of a claim. A claim is issued when the claim form is electronically sealed. There is another point. Retrospectively changing the date of issuing could also introduce a new and potentially disastrous problem. It would have meant that the claim had not been served within 7 days of it having been issued. A claim cannot be served until it has been issued.

(7) There are two footnotes to this first question. The first is that, in the event, no point on delay or lack of promptness was taken – rightly in my judgment – by the Defendant in the summary grounds. The second is
this. I provisionally think the email communications with the Court about changing the filing date were “unilateral communications” (see Baz v GDC [2025] EWHC 643 (Admin) at §39) which should have been cc’d to the Defendant’s solicitors.

(8) I turn to the second question. It raises an important point about e-filing and compliance, to secure that an e-filed claim is issued by the Court. In the email exchanges, the Claimant’s solicitors have been told by the Court that, when they attempted to e-file the claim on 6 February 2025, they “did not list the Defendant as a participant” and they “listed the legal representative as the solicitor, not the firm”. The Claimant’s solicitors – properly and understandably – have asked for clarity as to whether there is a basis in the Civil Procedure Rules for rejection an e-filed new claim – and the Court declining to issue it – by reference to the way in which the online form has been completed. As the Judge now considering this point, I will be assisted by further information and any submissions.

(9) I do not know whether it is disputed by the Claimant’s solicitors that the online form or HMCTS Guidance did require that the Defendant be listed as a participant; and whether they did require that the firm not the solicitor be listed. If that is contested, the Claimant’s solicitors will be able to assist by supplying screenshots to show what they were and were not asked to do. I understand that the e-filing system contains red asterisks to connote mandatory fields. I have not seen a red asterisk alongside “Add Case Party”. My present understanding is that “Add Case Party” asks “What is your Representation” (emphasis added). I have seen a red asterisks for the party information of the e-filing party, but I understand that clicking on “What is your Representation” leads to a search screen in which “last name” and “first name” are red-asterisked.

(10) I turn to whether any information in the online form is required by the CPR. E-filing in the Administrative Court is governed by CPR51PDO. A claimant is required to “upload the appropriate document”: see §2.3. A claim form unaccompanied by required documentation may be returned without being issued: Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 §§7.3.9 and 7.3.10. In the present case the bundle was e-filed again on 25 February 2025 and accepted. The problem is not with the e-filed “document” but with what was on the online e-filing form. CPR-compliant e-filing needs more than a compliant “document”. Most obviously, it requires payment of the relevant fee: CPR51PDO §2.3(e). But the claimant is also required when e-filing to “enter details” of the case: see CPR51PDO §2.3(c). My provisional view is that the required “details” which it is necessary to “enter” can extend to such details as the online form makes clear are mandatory fields. Provisionally, I think this mandatory nature could be expected to be spelled out within the online form and in the HMCTS Guidance. The 2024 Judicial Review Guide draws addresses e-filing (§7.8.3 and Annex 9), and reference is made to HMCTS Guidance (p.218). There is HMCTS Guidance entitled “Submit and Manage Your Filings” (updated 22.11.21). I would be assisted to know what the Claimant’s solicitors’ position is as to the contents of that Guidance and whether it says a defendant should be
listed as a participant and/or that the firm and not the solicitor should be listed.

(11) Provisionally, I think that – whether or not there is a CPR-based obligation to complete details carefully and accurately within the online form – it is good practice to do so, and there may be a practical peril in failing to do so. There may also be questions of checking compliance issues which necessarily involve ‘judgment-calls’ by court staff, supported by appropriate training and the court lawyers. But where neither the mandatory fields of the online form nor the HMCTS Guidance spells out that a particular detail is required – and especially if there is no prompt way of knowing that an e-filing has not been accepted or why it has not been accepted – it would seem difficult to justify a practice of rejecting the e-filing of a new claim. The position may need to be kept under review. Practical concerns raised by legal representatives can assist the Court.

(12) I do not presently know whether the Claimant’s solicitors say there was or was not a prompt way of knowing that the e-filing on 6 February 2025 had not been accepted or why it had not been accepted. Also, I do not know whether there is a screen-shot available of the text box which was received and the date on which it was received.

(13) Finally, this. If a party is encountering difficulties in taking some step – such as getting a claim or application issued – there is no reason why they cannot write to the other party or parties explaining the position. Evidence that practical difficulties were being encountered – especially where accompanied by communication with the other party or parties – will always be relevant when a party seeks to demonstrate that they acted reasonably and could not reasonably have done more.

(14) Further assistance on all of this will be welcomed by the Court. The Defendant’s representatives should be afforded an opportunity to assist, if they wish to do so. The Claimant’s representatives should promptly share with them the relevant email traffic.