EG -v- Surrey County Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2024-LON-001514
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
3 May 2024
Before:
Garnham J
Between:
The King on the application of
EG
-v-
Surrey County Council
Order
UPON considering the Claim Form, form N463, the Statement of Facts and Grounds, the Claimants supporting written evidence and the Defendant’s letter in response to the Pre- Action Protocol letter:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted.
2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, CPR Rule 5.4A, 5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:
a. There shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the name of the Claimant, reference to “EG”;
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. 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;
d. 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).
3. Pending the determination of the application for permission to apply for judicial review or further order, the Defendant shall reinstate the accommodation support withdrawn from the Claimant by its decision of 15 February 2024.
4. Liberty to apply to discharge or vary this Order on two working days’ written notice.
5. Costs reserved.
Observations
For the reasons set out in the Claimant’s Form N463 and his Statement of Facts and Grounds (SFG), it seems to me that there is a serious issue to be tried here. Although the Court has not yet seen the Defendant’s Grounds of Resistance, the SFG appears to set out an arguable claim for judicial review on the basis that the Defendant terminated support because the Claimant has turned 21 years old, without proper regard to its obligations under s.23CA of the Children Act 1989.
The balance of convenience, favours the grant of interim relief because that will cause the least irremediable prejudice. I accept the argument that the grant of relief represents a continuation of the status quo in that the Defendant has been providing the Claimant with accommodation support to enable him to live at his current address for more than four years.
I am not prepared, however, to accede to the Claimants request to order the provision of interim relief until the final resolution of this matter. The judge deciding whether to grant permission will be in a better position than me, having considered the Defendant’s defence to the claim and response to this Order, to decide whether that would be appropriate even if he or she grants permission.