BRK -v- South East London Integrated Care Board and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001497

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 May 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
BRK
(Claimant, by his Litigation Friend, BWK)

-v-

(1) South East London Integrated Care Board
(2) London Borough of Lewisham
(Defendants)

and

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
(Interested Party)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a.The name of the Claimant and the litigation friend is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “BRK”.
    c. The litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as “BWK”.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and the litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and the litigation friend in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. 
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must 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;
    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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. The Acknowledgments of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance of the First and Second Defendants, including a response to the application for interim relief, must be filed and served no more than 21 days after the date of service of the claim form and supporting documents.
  5. Any Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served no more than 7 days after service of the Acknowledgments of Service by the First and Second Defendants, pursuant to paragraph 4 above.
  6. The papers are to be referred to a Judge for a decision on the papers whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and interim relief, within 10 days thereafter.
  7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  8. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order as the Claimant is a protected party who lacks capacity.
  2. This is a substantial challenge in the context of a lengthy history. The Claimant, by his litigation friend, seeks permission to apply for judicial review of an alleged continuing and unlawful failure by the First Defendant to comply with its statutory duty to fund NHS Continuing Healthcare, without any lawful reassessment or process that complies with the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare. The Court of Protection, by its order of 25 February 2025, has refused to reconstitute the proceedings to examine the lawfulness of the funding.
  3. In view of the complex and contentious nature of the claim, the Court cannot make any substantive decisions without first hearing from the First and Second Defendants and, if appropriate, the Interested Party. The Claimant will then have an opportunity to file a Reply and the applications will then be considered by a Judge on the papers. Whilst I appreciate that the litigation friend seeks a swifter decision-making process, because of her concern about the Claimant, I do not consider that a shorter timetable is realistic, given the amount of material to be considered.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lang
Dated: 13 May 2025