FI -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002273

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

4 July 2024


The Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE


The King on the application of


London Borough of Hounslow


Before The Honourable Mrs Justice FOSTER DBE Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Claimants’ Application For Urgent Consideration and expedition dated 2 July 2024

AND UPON THE URGENT CONSIDERATION of the Claimants’ Statement of Facts and Grounds dated 2 July 2024 and documents filed with the same including the witness statement of FI dated 1 July 2024


1. There be an Order that the identity of the Claimant be anonymised, that there be no publication that may lead to the identification of the Claimant or her husband or children and that the claim be known as R(FI)-v-Hounslow LBC;

2. The Defendant do file and serve its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and such evidence as they wish to rely upon by 4 pm Friday 12 July 2024;

3. The Claim be listed for permission with the substantive hearing to follow immediately thereafter if permission is granted (a ‘rolled-up’ hearing) with a hearing date before 31 July 2024;

4. The Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence are to stand as its Detailed Grounds of Defence;

5. The Claimants do file and serve any evidence in reply and their skeleton argument 5 days before the hearing listed in accordance with (3) above;

6. The Defendant to file its skeleton argument 3 days before the hearing listed in accordance with (3) above.

7. Liberty to both parties to apply to vary this Order on 48 hours’ notice in writing by email to the other party and to the Court.


1. The materials including recent correspondence show that the Claimant has held off issuing proceedings in respect of their obviously urgent accommodation case and have awaited a response to their LBA of 23 May 24. By 21 June 24 the LA communicated it still did not have instructions to respond. The Claimant has properly engaged the LA on the question of expedition very recently – there has been no answer produced to the Court and it is appropriate that the above Order now follows.

2. The very short timetable is necessary given the evidenced high risks to the autistic 6 year old.

3. Given the child’s disabilities and the medical materials anonymity is also necessary for the Claimant.