KXP -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim Number: CO/4844/2022
In The High Court Of Justice
King’s Bench Division
21 March 2023
Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Secretary of State For The Home Department
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Anonymity order granted. The identity of the claimant as party to these proceedings is protected and shall not be published.
- Application for permission to apply for judicial review stayed pending final determination in the linked cases SXB & ALK v SSHD (CO/2194/2022) and MXK & Ors v SSHD (CO/238/2022) listed for substantive hearing on 10 and 11 May 2023.
- Within 28 days of the final outcome in SXB & ALK v SSHD (CO/2194/2022) and MXK & Ors v SSHD (CO/238/2022), the Claimant has permission to file and serve amended grounds for judicial review.
- Within 21 days of receipt of such amended grounds, the Defendant shall file her Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence.
- A decision on permission to follow in accordance with usual timescales.
- Costs reserved.
- The claimant asserts (SFG, variously) and the defendant accepts (SGD §6) that, although the fine detail of the facts of the stops differ, the prime issues in the instant case are materially indistinguishable from those in abovementioned cases fixed for determination in May.
- Further, the defendant accepts “it is highly likely that SXB and MXK will be determinative of the issues in this case” (SGD §8). Thus, given the close identity of material and decisive issues, it is unnecessary and disproportionate to further link this matter, potentially add to the length of Form PC9 JR. Planning Court judicial review – general order for directions.
- the hearing and possibly cause its being vacated, should insufficient court time be available.
- It is now less than 2 months until this court determines the linked cases. It is not arguable that the claimant will be prejudiced by awaiting the result of SXB/MXK.
- The point of difference advanced by the claimant (a repayment plan) is not a truly distinguishing feature as she has a further debt to another NHS trust without such plan. Therefore, the specific facts of her case do not merit separate and additional consideration. The governing principle will be decided by the court in SXB/MXK. At that point, all parties must be realistic, proactive and take stock. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort.
- Given the stay, it is completely inappropriate to refuse permission at this stage, as submitted by the defendant (SGD §59(ii)).