July 15, 2026

LOO -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002785

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 July 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Eady DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
LOO
(Claimant)

-v-

Westminster City Council
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 LOO.

(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.

i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;

iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may 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.

Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
Interim relief: Pending final determination of the claim, the Defendant is to use all reasonable endeavours to secure that suitable accommodation is available for the Claimant’s occupation forthwith.
Expedition: The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed on/no later than 25 August 2026.
Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 10 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review

(f) Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 5 working days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 3 working days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, 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, must be lodged with the Court not less than 2 working days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(i) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(j) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal medical information relating to the Claimant and his family, in which the Claimant/his family has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission and interim relief:
(a) The Defendant accepts that permission should be granted; it accepts that it has been in breach of its duty under section 193(2) Housing Act 1996 (“the main housing duty”) since 9 February 2026; it contends that the only outstanding issue is that of relief.

(b) Having accepted it is in breach of the main housing duty since 9 February 2026, the Defendant has said it is facing a housing crisis such that it has been unable to secure suitable accommodation for the Claimant. At present, the Claimant, his wife, and their two daughters (ages 15 and 12) live across two hotel rooms with no kitchen facilities; the Claimant and his wife suffer multiple, serious health conditions and the Claimant’s wife is pregnant and struggling to access her room (up some seven flights of stairs with no lift). Other than the offer of another hotel room in March 2026 (which was also acknowledged to be unsuitable), the Defendant has said it has been unable to source alternative, suitable accommodation for the Claimant’s household. Notwithstanding this position, it is the Defendant’s submission that mandatory interim relief – requiring the Defendant to secure suitable accommodation for the Claimant forthwith – should not be granted as this would deny it the opportunity to fairly put forward evidence to address the Iman criteria (R (Iman) v Croydon London Borough Council) [2023] UKSC 45).

(c) On one view, sufficient time has passed such that – allowing for the considerations identified in Iman – the Defendant ought to have complied with the main housing duty owed to the Claimant. In this regard, I note that, at present, the evidence provided by the Defendant is generic and does not greatly assist in showing the particular steps taken to seek out suitable accommodation for the Claimant. I further observe that the impact on the Claimant’s family will be all the greater as the year progresses, which adds further weight to the argument that a mandatory order should now be made.

(d) That said, I also note what the Defendant has stated regarding the competing interests of others who have an equal, or stronger, claim than the Claimant, and I am prepared to allow that the Defendant should have the opportunity to adduce evidence on the question of relief in this case. In allowing for that opportunity, I do not lose sight of the very real impact on the Claimant and his family caused by their present accommodation; accordingly, I have directed that the hearing in this matter be expedited, setting a compressed time-table to ensure that this takes place within six weeks. In the interim, I have ordered the Defendant to use all reasonable endeavours to secure that suitable accommodation is available for the Claimant’s occupation forthwith (a requirement that the Court will expect to see addressed in the evidence for the hearing of the claim).

Signed: MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Date: 14 July 2026