LH and another -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2024-LON-000116
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
12 January 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
Between:
The King on the application of
LH
RH (a child by his mother and litigation friend, LH)
-v-
London Borough of Hounslow
Order
On the Claimants’ application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration and directions;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimants and the Second Claimant’s litigation friend, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the First Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “LH”. The Second Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “RH”, and his litigation friend shall be anonymised and referred to as “LH”.
2. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the Claimants’ solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimants and the litigation friend, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimants and the litigation friend, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
4. The Defendant do file and serve its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance no more than 21 days after service of the claim form, in accordance with CPR r.54.8.
5. The Claimants shall file a Reply, no later than 7 days after service of the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance.
6. The application for permission, including the Claimants’ application for a rolled-up hearing, and expedition, shall be considered by a Judge on the papers no later than 7 days after the Claimants file their Reply.
7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
8. Costs reserved.
Reasons
1. I have granted an anonymity order for both Claimants to protect the identity of the Second Claimant who is a disabled child. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
2. The First Claimant has two children who are autistic and have special needs. For many years, since at least August 2022, the First Claimant has been seeking to induce the Defendant to provide safe and suitable accommodation for her family.
3. Their current privately-rented accommodation in a block of flats is unsafe for the children because no locks can be fitted to the windows or balcony door, and there is a real risk that the Second Claimant will go out on to the balcony unsupervised and fall to the ground.
4. The landlord of her current accommodation has obtained a possession order which requires the family to vacate by 14 December 2023.
5. On 18 December 2023, the Defendant accepted that the family is now homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. Bed and Breakfast accommodation was offered, but rejected by the First Claimant as unsuitable, because of the children’s disabilities.
6. The Council has produced a personalised housing plan dated 18 December 2023 which the First Claimant submits is inadequate.
7. The First Claimant has recently applied to be exempt from the residence requirement in the Housing Register. The Defendant has not yet responded to this request.
8. The Claimants seek declarations that:
a. The Defendant’s assessment of the Claimants’ housing needs and resulting plan are unlawful pursuant to section 189A Housing Act 1996;
b. The Defendant’s failure to provide safe and suitable accommodation is in breach of Article 2 ECHR;
c. The Defendant has acted unlawfully in failing to admit the First Claimant to its housing register, or consider whether to do so.
9. The Claimants also seek mandatory orders requiring the Defendant:
a. To provide safe and suitable accommodation for the Claimants as soon as possible;
b. To conduct children in need assessments, and a parent carer needs assessment in respect of the First Claimant’s other child, L, under the Children Act 1989.
10. In light of the lengthy and contentious dispute between the First Claimant and the Defendant, and the wide-ranging claim that has now been issued, I consider that the directions proposed by the Claimants are wholly unrealistic. The Defendant cannot fairly be expected to file its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence to this claim within 7 days of today, particularly as counsel will have to be instructed to address the complex legal issues. It is not in the interests of justice for a cursory pleading to be drafted by the Defendant simply to meet a very tight deadline. In my view, the Defendant will require the standard 21 days after service of the claim form, in accordance with CPR r.54.8, to provide an adequate response. The Claimants will then need to file a Reply.
11. Until the Court has the Defendant’s response to this claim, it is not in a position to decide which grounds may be arguable, and whether a rolled-up hearing is required. I have directed that the Claimants’ applications be considered speedily by a Judge on the papers once the Reply has been filed.
12. It is not clear when the Claimants will be evicted from their current accommodation, but in any event the Defendant has accepted its duty to house the Claimants. The Claimants may apply for urgent interim relief, should it become necessary to resolve any dispute regarding the suitability of the accommodation offered.