HRO -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-004250

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

6 March 2026

Before:

Richard Wright KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HRO

-v-

London Borough of Camden

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, the Claimant’s reply, the Claimant’s application for expedition and the Defendant’s reply

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

  1. 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 name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as HRO.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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 Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, 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.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £6000.
    (a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:
    (i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;
    (ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
    (b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.
    (c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
    (d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    (i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    – the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    – permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.
  4. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:
    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
    (iv) this Order;
    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);
    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Reasons

  1. The Claim concerns the domestic living arrangements of the Claimant and her children. There is a risk of identification of the children absent an order for anonymity for the Claimant. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. The Claim has come before me following a request made by the Claimant for expedition. On considering the papers and the history of the Claim it is apparent that the Court is in a position to make a decision about permission on the papers.
  3. The Claimant seeks permission to challenge what she asserts to be the ongoing failure of the Defendant to comply with its obligations under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 to provide a lawful housing needs assessment and suitable accommodation. She further asserts that her application for social housing has not been determined in accordance with the Defendant’s own Housing Allocations Policy.
  4. The Claimant resides at an address provided by the Defendant and lives at that address with her two young children. The property is a one bedroom flat situated on the third floor. The Claimant alleges that the property is unsafe for her son due to his behavioural needs. In particular she cites a risk that he will jump from the balcony, or from a communal internal stairwell and that he has access to the stove in what is an open plan kitchen. She asserts that the accommodation is having an adverse effect on her PTSD, depression and her anxiety. She also claims that her daughter is suffering harm because of the behaviour of her son caused by the lack of a suitable separate room.
  5. Three grounds are argued:
    (i) An unlawful and irrational failure to make a Direct Offer of accommodation such that accommodation that would meet her needs is not allocated pursuant to the Defendant’s allocation scheme.
    (ii) And unlawful and irrational failure to apply the criteria in the allocation scheme by not awarding medical points to her daughter.
    (iii) An unlawful and irrational failure to backdate the housing register and award waiting time points from April 2019 onwards.
  6. The Defendant replies to each Ground in turn that:
    (i) The allocation scheme is clear as to the circumstances in which Direct Offers are permitted and they are never made on medical grounds. The terms of the scheme therefore confer no right to a direct offer. The exceptional circumstances clause in the scheme is not triggered because the Claimant’s case is, quite simply, no exceptional.
    (ii) The Claimant has not provided any evidence of medical (as opposed to welfare) needs in respect of her daughter such that the decision not to offer points cannot be described as irrational.
    (iii) The Claimants application was received in September 2022 and that is the date from which waiting points fall to be calculated in accordance with the scheme. Her argument that she should be included from 2019 is predicated on a complaint that an earlier decision of the Defendant not to accept her 2019 application on the basis that she did not meet the residency requirement was itself unlawful. In fact there is no evidence of any application having been made in 2019.
  7. Accordingly, and by way of an overarching submission the Defendant contends that the decision cannot be described as irrational or unlawful. It was a decision taken consistent with the allocation policy on the established evidence.
  8. I remind myself that the Court should not take an overly technical view of the language used in a decision and should adopt a realistic and practical approach (See Holmes Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] 1 WLR 413). There is plainly here factual disputes as between the Claimant and the Defendant, but the issue is ultimately whether it was arguably irrational or unlawful for the Defendant to come to the conclusions that it did on the available evidence consistently with the terms of the allocation scheme. The mere fact that the Claimant disagrees with the reviewer application of the scheme is not a proper basis for challenge.
  9. Having considered carefully the terms of the scheme, the evidence available to the reviewer and the decision that was reached I do not consider it to be arguably the case that the reviewer acted irrationally or unlawfully. To the contrary they took decisions that were plainly consistent with the scheme and which they were reasonably entitled to take in the exercise of their judgement and discretion.