EB -v- Director of Legal Aid Casework, Legal Aid Agency (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001456

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 October 2025

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
EB

-v-

Director of Legal Aid Casework, Legal Aid Agency

Order

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

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and for permission

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds and the Claimant’s Reply.

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. 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 EB.

(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.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

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.

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.

3. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 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 21 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 28 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 21 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 14 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 7 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.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) In my judgment all of the Claimant’s grounds are realistically arguable having applied the test for granting permission expressed by Lord Bingham in Sharma.

(2) The first ground that Article 8 is engaged is properly arguable because (amongst other things) the application of ECHR case law in a challenge to the refusal of Exceptional Case Funding is “not hard-edged”, and only requires an assessment of the “likely shape of the proposed litigation and the individual’s ability to have effective access to justice in relation to it”: R (Gudanavicine) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] 1 WLR 2247 at [§32]. Furthermore, the critical issue therefore is whether the Claimant’s application for an individual license under the MDA 1971 would have a sufficiently significant impact on the essence of his private life to engage Article 8.

(3) The second ground that refusal of ECF leads to, or risks a breach of s. 10(3)(a) and (b) LASPO is realistically arguable on the facts since the Defendant’s decision failed to address “(i) the importance of the issues at stake”; failed to properly consider “(ii) the complexity of the procedural, legal and evidential issues” [SFG/§67(a)]; and completely failed to address “(iii) the ability of the Claimant to represent herself without legal assistance, having regard to her personal attributes, including her mental health.

(4) The third ground of sufficient benefit is also realistically arguable on the facts as the Defendant’s decision failed to have regard “to all the circumstances of the case including “the circumstances of the individual” is met with a bare denial.

(5) I note that the Claimant has not sought any orders for expedition.

Please note that the hearing is NOT SUITABLE FOR A DEPUTY.

Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Date: 13 OCTOBER 2025