LHX -v- The London Borough of Newham and another (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
7 October 2022
Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
LHX (anonymity granted) (through her litigation friend SHX)
The London Borough of Newham
NHS North East London Commissioning Group
On an application by LHX for anonymity and permission
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendants:
Order by Dexter Dias KC, sitting as Deputy High Court Judge
- The anonymity sought is granted.
(1) Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) and section 39(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or her mother and litigation friend or any details leading to their identification. If referred to, they shall only be referred to as “LHX” and “SHX” respectively.
(2) Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant and her mother and litigation friend are referred to in those documents only by the letters “LHX” and “SHX” respectively; and (b) any reference to their names have been deleted from those documents.
(3) Liberty to the Defendant to apply for variation of the preceding paragraph of the order, to be supported by any evidence relied on, on 48 hours’ notice to the Claimant.
- Consideration of the application for permission is stayed for 8 weeks, that is, until 4pm, 1 December 2022.
- Parties at liberty to apply in the interim to lift the stay.
- Costs reserved.
- Judicial review is a remedy of last resort.
- By a letter dated 15 September 2022, the claimant states that her family and the second defendant have agreed to meet to discuss the issue of resources. That lies at the heart of this dispute.
- In the circumstances, it is premature and disproportionate for the court to rule on permission at this point.
- Parties are strongly encouraged to resolve this matter by negotiation and/or mediation.
- The court has a duty under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to actively manage the case and enlist the support of parties to do so. In particular CPR 1.4 provides insofar as it is material:
(1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.
(2) Active case management includes –
(a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;
(e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure.
- If agreement proves impossible by the date set above, the matter must be restored forthwith for a judge of the Administrative Court to consider permission.