May 13, 2024

CM -v- The Independent Review Panel of PQR Academy Trust (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002988

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

13 May 2024

Before:

Hugh Southey KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King on the application of
CM (by her grandmother and Litigation Friend CY)

-v-

The Independent Review Panel of PQR Academy Trust

and

PQR Academy Trust
A local authority
(interested parties)

Order

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 Acknowledgement of service and letter filed by the Interested Party

ORDER by HUGH SOUTHEY KC (sitting as a DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted in relation to grounds 3 and 4.

2. The Claimant’s grandmother is appointed as her litigation friend.

3. The identity of the Claimant and her grandmother shall not be published.

4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant and her grandmother or any other matters which could lead to their identification.

5. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “CM” and her grandmother as “CY” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant or her grandmother shall be redacted.

6. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Defendant shall be referred to as “The Independent Review Panel of PQR Academy
Trust”, the First Interested Party as PQR Academy Trust, and the Second Interested Party as “A Local Authority”.

7. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:
a. A person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this order;
b. If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;
c. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 2 to 5(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

8. The orders made at paragraphs 3 to 8 above are subject to review at the substantive hearing listed by paragraph 9, below.

9. The hearing of the claim is expedited and shall be listed for hearing in week commencing 30 September, or as soon thereafter as the court can accommodate the hearing, with a time estimate of 1 day. If the parties disagree with this time estimate they shall provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order.

Observations

1. I have carefully considered the decision challenged. It appears to me that the first ground is based on a misreading of the decision. The grounds place heavy weight on a statement in the decision that ‘Southwark LA’s inability to name a school on the EHCP also played a part in the decision to permanently exclude’. It appears to me that this statement was taken out of context. Read in context it appears to me that the decision acknowledges that the timing of the decision was based on the failure to name a school. The substance of the decision was not based on this.

2. The second ground appears to me to depend upon an argument that it is unclear whether the Claimant breached the behaviour policy at Arco Academy. It appears to me that the Defendant is entitled to highlight the findings of the First-tier Tribunal finding a breach of the behaviour policy.

3. I am concerned as to whether grounds 3 and 4 reflect the manner in which matters were argued before the Defendant. If they did not, that may mean that these grounds lack merit. I am also uncertain about the scope of the duties in relation to grounds 3 and 4. However, bearing in mind the low threshold for a grant of permission, I cannot dismiss these grounds as unarguable.

4. The additional directions are appropriate in light of the age of the Claimant.

5. A degree of expedition is appropriate in light of the age of the Claimant.

Case Management Directions

1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 14 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.

3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than [3] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

7. The Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission on grounds 1 and 2 be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.