May 8, 2024

KT -v- Office of the Independent Adjudicator (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000706

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

8 May 2024

Before:

Hugh Southey KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King on the application of
KT

-v-

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant [and the Acknowledgement(s) of service filed by the Defendant and/or Interested Party]

ORDER by HUGH SOUTHEY KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

2. The application is to be listed for 1 day; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.

3. Until the substantive hearing of this application for judicial review.
a. There be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to the Claimants by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters ‘KT’ for the claimant.
b. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked ‘anonymised’. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of pleadings, a Judgment, or Order from the Court records only if the pleadings, Judgment or Order has been anonymises such that the Claimant is referred to as KT in those documents and his address or other identifying information has been removed.
c. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing or any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant’s name or address is prohibited.

Observations

1. This judicial review challenges a decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education in disciplinary proceedings brought against the Claimant. The Defendant conducts independent reviews of university disciplinary proceedings. In this case the disciplinary proceedings were brought by Reading University.

2. The first ground alleges that the Defendant erred in law in rejecting a complaint brought by the Claimant that the initial student disciplinary committee was chaired by a person who lacked the necessary status. I have read the Claimant’s grounds and the response provided by the Defendant. I have also read the initial decision of the Defendant. It appears to me that it is arguable that the Defendant did not adequately engage with the Claimant’s complaint. I have considered the evidence that the Defendant relies upon but appears to me that this does not demonstrate that its decision was justified. I have also considered the issue of whether the wrong decision has been challenged. It appears to me that it is arguable that the decision of 30 November 2023 incorporates the earlier decision that addresses this complaint. However, I expressly direct that this issue can be addressed at the substantive hearing. I am not granting permission to challenge the earlier decision.

3. The second ground challenges the procedure adopted by the Defendant when it revised its recommendation requiring the University to conduct further disciplinary proceedings. The revision appears to me to have substantially prejudiced the Claimant as it prevented him participating in the disciplinary procedures. It seems to me that it is arguable that the Claimant should have a greater opportunity to participate in the new disciplinary procedure.

4. The final ground challenges the revised recommendations made by the Defendant. I do have concerns about whether any public law error has been identified but it appears to me that it might be argued that the changes made went beyond those needed to ensure compliance with bail conditions.

5. I should emphasise that my decision is based on the low threshold that needs to be crossed before a grant of permission.

6. There is an application for expedition. Obviously I accept that the Claimant will be keen to resolve these proceedings. However, I am not satisfied that this application is any more urgent than many matters considered by the Administrative Court.

7. There is also an application for anonymity. I am not certain that an order is justified. It is true that the Claimant faces criminal allegations but such allegations are often reported. It is also true that there is some reference to a history of mental health issues but that is of limited significance and not particularly serious. However, on balance, I am persuaded that an order should be made preventing reporting to allow this issue to be considered in greater detail at the substantive hearing. It is the substantive hearing that is likely to generate media interest.

Case Management Directions

1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.

3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

7. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.