CR -v- Leeds City Council (anonymity order and application for judicial review)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024-LDS-000092

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

14 August 2024

Before:
Her Honour Judge Claire Jackson
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:
The King
on the application of CR (by her Litigation Friend LR)
-v-
Leeds City Council
-and-
Leeds College of Building (Interested Party)

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and an application by the Interested Party to rely on a witness statement

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant and the Interested Party

ORDER by Her Honour Judge Claire Jackson sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant, her Litigation Friend, or any details leading to their identification. They shall be referred to as ‘CR’ and ‘LR’ respectively
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant and her Litigation Friend are referred to in those documents only by the letters “CR” and “LR” respectively; and (b) any reference to their names have been deleted from those documents.
  3. The Leeds College of Building, the Interested Party, has permission to rely upon the witness statement of Nicola Jane Robinson.
  4. If so advised, the Claimant and the Defendant may file evidence limited to a reply to the witness statement of Nicola Jane Robinson by 4 pm on 12th September 2024.
  5. Upon the expiry of the date calculated in accordance with paragraph 4 above, the case will be referred to a Judge for a decision on the permission application.
  6. Costs of the applications are in the case.
  7. Any party affected by this Order may apply to set it aside, to review, rescind or amend the Order on three days written notice to the other parties. Any such application must be made within seven days of the party receiving this Order.

Reasons

  1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 relate to the anonymity order sought by the Claimant. The Claimant is a young person aged 16 and the proceedings should therefore be anonymised pursuant to s.39 CYPA 1933. The Litigation Friend also seeks anonymity to prevent the Claimant being identified through her name. This is a sensible order to have sought given the facts of this case.
  2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 relate to the application by the Interested Party. Having considered the papers in the case the contents of the witness statement of Nicola Jane Robinson are relevant to the decision the Court will need to make at the permission stage given section 39(4)(b) of the Children and Families Act 2014. As a result it is appropriate for permission to be granted to rely on the witness statement.
  3. No party has filed any evidence in reply to the statement. This is not surprising given the terms of the application before the Court, which included that the Court should permit the other parties to file a reply after the admissibility of the statement had been determined. Given that the statement is relevant to the Court’s decision it is correct that the remaining parties have a right to file evidence in reply before the permission decision is made.
  4. Paragraphs 5 to 7 are case management orders which are self-explanatory given the terms of this Order.