MJN -v- Cardiff City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case Number: AC-2023-CDF-000139

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

14 December 2023

Before:
PJL Lambert (Julian Lambert) sitting as a judge of the High Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Between:
The King on the application of
MJN
-v-
(by his litigation friend Darren Toop)
Cardiff City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, permission to proceed without a litigation friend and expedition,

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by His Honour Judge Lambert sitting as a judge of the High Court.

  1. The application for anonymity is granted, with liberty to any person to apply to vary or discharge anonymity on notice to the parties. Pending further Order, pursuant to CPR 39.2 the Claimant is granted anonymity and shall be known as “MJN” and there shall be no publication of his name or any information that might lead to him being identified.
  2. No order is made on the application to proceed without a litigation friend.
  3. Expedition is refused.

Reasons

Anonymity.

The application for anonymity is granted, with liberty to any person to apply to vary or discharge anonymity on notice to the parties. I am satisfied that there is a CPR 39.2(4) necessity,

Litigation friend or not.

Sometimes you title the application as “MJN (by his litigation friend Darren Toop)”and then the form N244 makes no mention of an application to proceed without a litigation friend and then your draft order does:

“2. Pursuant to CPR 21.2(3) the Claimant is permitted to bring this claim in the absence of a litigation friend having been appointed;”

You then include a certificate of suitability in the permission bundle. Your solicitor’s witness statement says:

“11. By way of interim relief the Claimant, who brings this claim with the benefit of his litigation friend Darran Topp of the Barnardos Advocacy Service… …”

You will forgive me for being at a loss to know what you want me to do. I will simply make no order on your application to proceed without a litigation friend.

Expedition.

There is nothing in your application that requires expedition. The application should not have been made. You have a safe place to live and have support from the Local Authority. Your application is based on the fact you would prefer to live elsewhere. There is nothing urgent about your application, there are, however, many other applications where things are genuinely urgent such as people without any accommodation at all or who are not safe. You have arrogated to yourself, via your lawyers, an unfair share of the court’s scarce resources.

I adopt, with respect, and appropriate modification, the approach of Fordham J in CO/2397/2023 AZ v SSHD.

This is an unjustifiable and unrealistic approach to judicial resources for the purpose of a sudden shortening of a deadline. Should it represent a growing practice then that needs to stop. If the Claimant’s legal representatives take this course in another similar claim, they should provide and draw attention to this Order and explain why my reasoning is wrong or distinguishable.

Signed: PJL Lambert (Julian Lambert) sitting as a judge of the High Court 14.12.23