HOU and another -v- Royal Borough of Greenwich (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000913

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

9 March 2026

BEFORE:

RICHARD WRIGHT KC

BETWEEN:

THE KING on the application of
(1) HOU
(2) HOV
(CHILDREN BY THEIR FATHER AND LITIGATION FRIEND HXM)

-v-

ROYAL BOROUGH OF GREENWICH

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY RICHARD WRIGHT KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Anonymity:
(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s names, and the name of their father and litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as HOU.
(iii) The Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as HOV.
(iv) The Claimant’s father and litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as HXM.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants and their litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants and their litigation friend in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Interim Relief:

  1. Pending determination of this claim or further order of the Court, the Defendant shall not make any direct allocation offer of accommodation to the Claimants without first:
    a. conducting a current assessment of the Claimants’ medical and housing needs, taking into account all medical evidence in the Defendant’s possession and any evidence submitted by the claimants including education health and care plans, CAMHS records, social care assessments and relevant medical recommendations
    b. Providing the claimants with a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the proposed property before any formal offer is made
    c. Providing written reasons with any offer explaining how the property has been assessed against the children’s disability related needs and why it is considered to meet those needs
  2. Any offer made otherwise than in accordance with the foregoing paragraphs shall not be treated as a formal offer for the purposes of section 9.8 of the Defendant’s allocations scheme and the Claimants refusal of such an offer shall not result in reduction of priority or cancellation of direct allocation status
  3. The Defendant shall file and serve any evidence in response to this application within seven days of the date of this order
  4. Costs reserved
  5. Liberty to the parties to apply to vary the terms of this order

Reasons

(1) The Claimant’s are both disabled children who bring this Claim with the support of their father as their litigation friend. The Claim concerns sensitive personal medical information relating to each of them. An order for anonymity is appropriate and a limited derogation from the principle of open justice.

(2) It appears that the Defendant has confirmed that the Claimants qualify for direct allocation of four-bedroomed accommodation under a one-offer-only policy. Such an offer may be made at any time. Refusal would result in the loss of medical priority status that has been established since 2021. The Defendant has refused to confirm that it will conduct a suitability assessment before making an offer. The Claimants therefore seeks interim relief to protect what they assert is their lawful entitlement in any event pending the determination of this Claim. Absent interim relief the Defendant may offer unsuitable accommodation prior to the determination of this Claim, the refusal of which result in the Claimants losing their current priority status.

(3)I am satisfied that the interim relief sought should be granted. There is plainly a serious issue to be tried. The Defendant appears to accept that its decision in September 2024 was flawed. There is a real and imminent risk of irreversible harm were the Defendant to make an offer of accommodation without conducting a suitability assessment. Damages would not be capable of compensating disabled children living in unsuitable accommodation. The balance of convenience is in favour of making the Order for interim relief. The Order does no more than compel the Defendant to comply with its pre-existing Statutory duties. It would only be where the Defendant intended to ignore or bypass those duties that the Order would bite.