DLJ -v- London Borough of Islington (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003718

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

11 December 2024

Before:

Judge Melanie Plimmer sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

DLJ
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

-v-

London Borough of Islington

and

London Borough of Brent
(interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an application for interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by Judge Melanie Plimmer sitting as a Judge of the High Court

(1) The application for a reconsideration of interim relief at an oral hearing should be made to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘UTIAC’), where this claim has already been transferred.

Reasons

  1. In an Order dated 29 November 2024 Eyre J granted permission, refused interim relief and transferred the claim to the UTIAC.
  2. The Claimant has made an application dated 6 December 2024, to set aside the decision on interim relief and for the matter to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. The application relies upon reports available to Eyre J and the Claimant’s adverse reaction to the decision on interim relief. In effect the Claimant has applied for a reconsideration of interim relief.
  3. As a further application for interim relief can properly be made to and promptly considered by UTIAC, where the substantive claim has already been transferred, the Claimant should make his application to UTIAC.
  4. There has been a further application for the interim relief application to be heard alongside but (as I understand it) separately from ELD v LB Islington AC-2024-LON-003651. This claim raises similar issues and was also transferred to UTIAC by Eyre J in an Order dated 29 November 2024. In the circumstances I have considered the instant application alongside ELD, and UTIAC may wish to take a similar approach. The Defendant has not objected to both claims being considered together at an oral hearing, but it seems to me the application is for the claims to be considered alongside each other.