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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/462/2023

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

23 March 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
EC

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(HO Ref: C1365924)

Order

UPON the Defendant agreeing to suspend deductions from the Claimant’s asylum support payments pending judicial determination of this claim;
On the Court’s own initiative;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant and his litigation friend, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “EC”.
  2. The Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above, save with the leave of the Court.
  4. The Claimant’s time for filing the claim is extended to 3 February 2023.
  5. This claim is to be linked with R (LD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CO/75/2023, for administration and hearing. All orders and documents are to be served on the parties in both claims.
  6. The proceedings are to be stayed until the Defendant has notified the Claimant of the further decision referred to in the Summary Grounds of Defence under Grounds 5 and 6, paragraph 47.
    Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020
  7. Within 7 days of the date of this order, the Defendant is to notify the Claimant and the Court when she anticipates the further decision will be made.
  8. Once the Claimant has been notified of the Defendant’s further decision, within 21 days she must file and serve representations informing the Defendant and the Court (a) whether she wishes to withdraw the claim on terms as to costs; or (b) whether she wishes to proceed with the claim, and if so, whether she wishes to apply to amend her claim form and Statement of Facts and Grounds. Any application to amend must be made by way of a formal application notice, accompanied by a copy of the proposed amendments.
  9. The Defendant shall respond to the Claimant’s representations and applications under paragraph 8 above, and if so advised, make any other applications, within 14 days of service thereof.
  10. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  11. Costs reserved.

Reasons

I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
The grounds for making the claim first arose as a result of the Defendant’s decision letter dated 13 July 2022. The Claimant filed a notice of appeal to the Asylum Support Tribunal on 1 December 2022. However, on 7 November 2022, the appeal was struck out on the papers. The Claimant then acted promptly in sending a pre-action letter to the Defendant on 1 December 2022 and received a reply on 7 January 2023. The claim for judicial review was then filed on 3 February 2023. The Defendant does not object to the extension of time requested by the Claimant, given the Claimant’s genuine belief that the Asylum Support Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the appeal and the fact that the claim was commenced within 3 months of the Tribunal’s decision to strike out the appeal. In all the circumstances, it is just to grant the extension of time sought.
The two claims have been linked as they both challenge the Defendant’s decision to make deductions from the Claimants’ asylum support to recover overpayments. The grounds overlap as they are represented by the same solicitors and counsel. Linking the two claims ensures consistency of approach, and furthers the overriding objective of saving costs and court resources.
The Defendant’s further decision could result in a number of different consequences for this claim. The parties are going to have to consider their positions in the light of a further decision. In the meantime, I consider that staying the claim will further the overriding objective.