LAP -v- London Borough of Tower Hamlets (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002386

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

22 May 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King on the application of
LAP

-v-

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Order

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “LAP”.
    (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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    (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. Mandatory injunction:
    (a) The Defendant must as soon as practicable and in any event by no later than 12.00pm on Wednesday 27 May 2026 provide the Claimant with wheelchair accessible accommodation suitable for her reasonable needs and continue to provide that accommodation until final determination of this claim or further order of the court
    (b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.
    THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4
  3. Costs reserved.

Reasons

Anonymity: For the reasons given in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the statement of facts and grounds, I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Mandatory injunction: On the basis of the evidence before the court, there is a strong prima facie case that the Defendant’s judgment on the suitability of accommodation offered to the Claimant to meet her reasonable needs is irrational, for the simple reason that she is a wheelchair user and the accommodation is on the first floor served by narrow stairs and without access by lift.