EB -v- Dorset Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/2581/2023

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

15 August 2023

Before:

His Honour Judge Keyser KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
EB (a child, by his litigation friend LH)

-v-

Dorset Council

Order

UPON the application for anonymity, interim relief and permission to apply for judicial review
AND UPON consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant
IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. Pursuant to CPR r. 3 9 .2, the Claimant is granted anonymity and shall be known as “EB” and there shall be no publication of his name or that of his litigation friend or any information that might lead to the Claim􀀖nt being identified.
  2. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this Order) without the permission of a Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service.
  3. Any person shall be at liberty to apply to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 and 2 above on notice to the parties.
  4. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  5. The application for interim relief is refused.
  6. The hearing of the claim is expedited and shall be listed for hearing in week commencing 18 September 2023 or- as soon thereafter as the ·Court can accommodate the hearing, with a time estimate of 1 day. If the parties disagree with this time estimate they 􀀑hall provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this Order. The parties shall by 2pm on 21 August 2023 provide details of availability for the period 18 September 2023 to 6 October 2023 inclusive; however, although counsel’s availability will be taken into account, it will not necessarily be determinative.
  7. The following case management directions shall have effect.
    7.1 The Defendant shall by 4pm on 29 August 2023 file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a-document which states that its Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR r. 54.14.
    7.2 Any application by the Claimant to rely on evidence in reply shall be filed and served by 4pm on 4 September 2023 and shall be accompanied by the evidence proposed to be relied on.
    7.3 The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 7 days 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.
    7.4 The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 4 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
    7.5 The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 2 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
    7.6 The parti’es 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 2 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
    7.7 The parties may by written agreement vary the times for doing any of the things mentioned in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 above, but for other purposes CPR r. 2.11 shall not apply.
  1. Each party shall be at liberty to apply for further or other case management directions.
  2. Costs are reserved.

Observations

(1) The Claimant is a child with various mental, emotional and behavioural difficulties. He challenges what he says is the Defendant’s failure to secure special educational provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”).
(2) On account of the Claimant’s age and vulnerability, it is justifiable to grant the application for anonymity. Any person wishing to contest the justification for anonymity may do so in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Order.
(3) The Defendant accepts that the grounds advanced are sufficiently arguable to justify the grant of permission.
(4) The Claimant applies for an interim injunction requiring the Defendant (1) to secure the special educational provision specified in the ECHP within 30 days of this Order and (2) if the Defendant cannot comply with that requirement and makes application to vary it, to provide suitable education otherwise than at school within 30 days of this Order. I refuse that application. It does not follow from the fact that there is an absolute duty that it is necessary or justified and convenient to make a mandatory order. In the present case I am not persuaded that a mandatory injunction would serve any useful purpose. I also have regard to the fact that the application is being considered in the middle of August, during school holidays. The matter is in my judgment better dealt with by an order for expedition.
(5) The directions in respect of expedition are relatively tight but ought to be achievable. The parties should cooperate flexibly, within the constraints set by the hearing date and paragraph 7. 7 above.