BSP -v- London Borough of Redbridge (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002362

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

18 July 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King on the application of
BSP

-v-

London Borough of Redbridge

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief 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 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 BSP.
    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 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;
    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 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.
  2. Mandatory injunction:
    a) By 4:00pm on Monday 21 July 2025 the Defendant must provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation and continue to provide her with suitable accommodation until the determination of this claim for judicial review or further order.
    b) The Defendant may apply on 24 hours’ notice to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

***THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4***

3. Abridgement of time and expedition:
a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 1 August 2025.
b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 8 August 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 as soon as possible thereafter.

4. Costs reserved.

Reasons

Anonymity: There are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. The evidence before the court shows the Claimant to be a vulnerable person who has been given limited leave to remain in the UK as an asylum seeker with serious mental health problems resulting from their past experience of abuse in their country of origin.

Mandatory injunction: The evidence before the court establishes a strong prima facie case that the Claimant as a vulnerable person who is in priority need for suitable temporary accommodation and eligible for assistance from Monday 21 July 2025, the date on which she will be required to leave the accommodation provided to her by the Home Office pending determination of her asylum claim. As a person in priority need, there is a strong prima facie case that the Defendant as local housing authority are under a duty to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation pending the determination of her homelessness application, by virtue of section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996. The balance of convenience clearly favours an order for the Claimant’s temporary accommodation pending determination of this claim, or further order of the court. As this order is made without hearing from the Defendant in response to the application, there is liberty to apply to vary or discharge.

Abridgement of time: It is appropriate to abridge time for service of the Acknowledgment of Service and any Reply.