KBK -v- London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001977

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

28 April 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
KBK
(Claimant/Applicant)

-v-

London Borough of Croydon
(Defendant/Respondent)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief, dated 28 April 2026 and for an order granting anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any of her children, or any other matters which could lead to her identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “KBK” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant or any of her children shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:

(a) a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;

(b) if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;

(c) any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

  1. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5)
  2. With immediate effect and until further order of the court, the Defendant is to provide temporary accommodation for the Claimant and her three dependent children.
  3. By 4:00pm on Thursday 30 April 2026, the Defendant shall file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief.
  4. By 4:00pm on Tuesday 5 May 2026, the Claimant may file and serve any reply to the Defendant’s response.
  5. By no later than midday on Wednesday 6 May 2026, the file shall be restored to a judge of the Administrative Court to consider all appropriate orders and/or directions.
  6. Costs reserved.

REASONS

  1. This application is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. By her claim for judicial review, the Claimant seeks to challenge the Defendant’s refusal of interim accommodation under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996. She has three dependent children aged between 11 and 16 and has been granted leave to remain under the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession, prior to which she had been provided with accommodation by the Defendant under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, provision of which accommodation has been terminated as of today. Accommodation sought from the Defendant’s homelessness team has been refused, seemingly in the belief that responsibility for providing interim accommodation lies with a different local authority (Bromley). It is apparent from the Defendant’s letter to that authority, dated 27 April 2026, that it does not dispute the asserted need for interim accommodation. Its understanding of the London Borough of Bromley’s involvement to date does not appear to reflect the earlier correspondence with which the court has been provided, or the evidence of the Claimant’s legal representatives. The Claimant asserts that the accommodation previously provided has been provided by the Defendant, and that, in any event, as a valid homelessness application has been made to the Defendant, it cannot avoid its statutory duty by contending that she could enforce the same duty against a different local authority.
  3. On the material with which the court has been provided to date, there is a real issue to be tried. The court would be assisted by the Defendant’s response to the application, and the balance of convenience favours the order made at paragraph 6 above pending receipt of that response, whereafter the court will consider the appropriate way forward.

    Anonymity
  4. The details of the Claimant’s circumstances and those of her children are sensitive and include abuse by the Claimant’s former spouse. Non- disclosure of their identities is necessary for the protection of their interests. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision made by paragraph 4 of the above orders, in which the reference to ‘other interested persons’ would encompass representatives of the Press and other media.

Signed: Mrs Justice Ellenbogen
Dated: 28/04/26