DXP -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001991

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

1 August 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Eyre

Between:

The King on the application of
DXP

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

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 filed by the Defendant

And UPON it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Eyre

  1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted, and pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A-5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:
    (a) The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as “DXP” and there shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the name of the Claimant, reference to “DXP”;
    (b) There shall be no publication of any name, address, picture or other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant as being the Claimant in these proceedings;
    (c) In paragraph (b) “publication” means communication to the public or any section of the public whether by way of report of the proceedings or otherwise. It includes publication in a newspaper or broadcast, or on the
    internet, by any person;
    (d) The Defendant, and any party served with or given notice of the anonymity order, has permission to apply to discharge or vary that order. Any application for that purpose must be made in writing, on notice to all parties;
    (e) 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: (i) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as “DXP”; and (ii) any reference to the name of the Claimant be deleted from those documents
    (f) Any application for permission to inspect or obtain a non-anonymised version of a document must be made on notice to the Claimant and in accordance with CPR r.5.4C(6).
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  3. The application is to be listed for 1 day; the parties are to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.
  4. The application is to be listed for a hearing to take place before the end of the Michaelmas term.
  5. Any application that this case be heard together with claim number AC-2024-LON-001478 shall be made by 4.00pm on 16th August 2024.

Observations

  1. I have had regard to the importance of the principle of open justice. I am nonetheless satisfied that anonymisation is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice here. That is because of the
    likelihood that it will be necessary in the course of the proceedings to refer to material giving details of the Claimant’s health difficulties and that in the absence of anonymisation there is a risk either that the
    information will not be provided with a consequent impact on the court’s ability properly to determine the case or that inappropriate harm will be caused to the Claimant’s interests.
  2. There is force in the arguments advanced by the Defendant and not all the grounds have the same degree of strength. However, the matters raised by the Defendant do not demonstrate that the claim is not properly arguable and there is sufficient force in each ground to surmount the comparatively low hurdle for the grant of permission.
  3. I have directed that the case be heard in the Michaelmas Term. I am not satisfied that further expedition is justified in light of the impact which such expedition would have on the claims of other litigants.
  4. The Claimant refers to other claims which are said to raise similar issues. However, the degree of similarity is not set out in any detail and I note that the other claims are said to involve issues of child
    welfare which is not, as I understand the papers, relevant here. I am not currently persuaded that it is appropriate for this case to be heard with those other matters and there is a risk that such a course would
    increase rather than reduce the costs and time taken. That view is formed on the limited information I currently have and I have provided for an application to be made if either party wishes to be dealt with together. On hearing such an application the court will be concerned to address the degree of overlap between the cases and the impact which hearing the matters together will have on the time needed for any hearing.

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 21 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 7 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission 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.