Case number: CO/647/2023
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
25 April 2023
Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
The King on the application of:
CAA (by his mother and litigation friend CAD)
The Independent Review Panel for UCL Academy
London Borough of Camden (Interested parties)
Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgements of Service filed by both Interested Party and the Claimant’s Reply
ORDER by Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- An anonymity order is made in respect of the Claimant and his ligation friend under CPR 39(2)(3)(d) and there shall be no publication which identifies their name and address or which could lead to their identication.
- As submitted by the First Interested Party the Independent Review Panel for the UCL Academy shall be substituted as the Defendant and UCL Academy and the London Borough of Camden shall be substituted as the Interested Parties.
- The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
- No order for costs.
- The Claimant has failed to advance any grounds for permission for judicial review which have a realistic prospect of success.
- As the First Interested Party submits, the duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 depends on the function and is highly fact specific. I accept the submission the First Interested Party makes at paras 26 and 27 of its Summary Grounds and reject the complaint that s 149 is, arguably, breached. In any event, it is not, realistically, arguable, that s 149 applies to the Defendant since it is exercising a judicial function.
- In my judgment the Claimant has failed to advance a properly arguable ground on the facts that the Defendant did not act independently and/or that there is realistic prospect that the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Defendant was biased.
- Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the Defendant has, arguably, made a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have made.