EFW -v- Bromley London Borough Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/3139/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
1 September 2022
Before:
The Honourable Mr Justice Johnson
Between:
The Queen on the application of
EFW
-v-
Bromley London Borough Council
Order
On an application by the Claimant for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Johnson
1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as EFW.
2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as EFW.
3. 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: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as EFW; and (b) that any reference to the names of the Claimant be deleted from those documents.
4. Paragraphs 1-3 of this order shall be reconsidered when the Claimant’s application for permission to claim judicial review is determined.
5. The Defendant shall file a response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief by 4pm on 9 September 2022.
6. The application for interim relief shall be determined at a hearing to be listed as soon as is practicable after 11 September 2022.
7. Costs reserved.
8. Any party may apply to vary or set aside this order.
Reasons
I have granted an order for anonymity on a temporary basis to hold the ring.
The application should be reconsidered when permission is determined.
The Defendant has offered accommodation which appears to be suitable subject to it being in Newham rather than Bromley. The Defendant says that this was appropriate because of risks to the Claimant in Bromley and that, anyway, the children can move school. The Claimant says that the risk to her was only at her previous home, there is no general risk in Bromley, and that accommodation in Newham is not suitable. In the interim the Claimant does have accommodation but it is plainly not suitable for the long term.
I am not prepared to grant a mandatory injunction on an urgent basis without the Defendant having an opportunity to make representations. I have therefore made directions for an oral hearing, as soon as practicable after 11 September 2022 (and the application is suitable for vacation business).