October 7, 2025

COM -v- London Borough of Barnet (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002976

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

2 October 2025

Before:

Her Honour Judge Karen Walden-Smith,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
COM

-v-

London Borough of Barnet

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE KAREN WALDEN-SMITH SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 COM.

(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.

i. the parties 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;

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;

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.

Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
Expedition: The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed on the first available date after 13 November 2025
Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 14 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve
(i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and
(ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 10 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 5 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, 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, must be lodged with the Court not less than 10 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(i) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) While anonymity many not have been necessary when dealing with the claimant herself, the involvement of her vulnerable children – particularly when considering their medical conditions – makes it appropriate to anonymise the claimant in order that the children cannot be identified.
(2) The summary grounds provided by the defendant are currently inadequate to answer the
points raised by the claimant.
(3) The claimant suffers from autism and ADHD. She is the single mother to two young
children with dates of birth 24 January 2016 (S) and 21 June 2016 (J) who suffer from their own medical difficulties. S has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, a severe intellectual disability and a sleep disorder. J has been referred for a diagnosis of ASD and ADHD. Both children have been referred to CAMHS for mental health support.
(4) Since March 2021, the family have been living in temporary accommodation provided by the defendant. The accommodation is said to have numerous issues which make it unsuitable for the family. D has accepted that the issues cannot be solved with remedial action. C says that she was advised to make an application for a transfer of social housing on the grounds of medical priority but that was rejected in November 2023. She then provided further evidence and requested an internal review but her housing priority has not yet been decided by defendant
(5) It is arguable that the failure of the defendant to determine C’s housing priority is unlawful and the significant delay has potential to prejudice both C and her children. There does not appear to be any reasonable process for determining her housing priority and a reasoned decision should be made by the defendant.A review decision undertaken on 29 January 2025 has unexplained evidential gaps and laps in reasoning. Permission
is therefore granted on ground 1.
(6) The defendant’s letter dated 4 June 2025 does not progress C’s application for housing and does not appear to contain a decision. If it does contain a decision then it fails to take into account relevant matters. Permission is therefore granted on ground 2.

Signed: HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Date: 2 October 2025