Claim number: CO/1098/2023
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
10 November 2023
David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
The King on the application of
NAA (by his litigation friend and mother NAD)
An independent review panel
A local authority
Upon an application for permission to bring judicial review
And upon the Claimant’s application for anonymity pursuant to CPR 39
And upon the Claimant’s application for a stay of proceedings
Following consideration of the applications and documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- As to the application for an Anonymity order:
a. The identity of the Claimant and his mother shall not be published.
b. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant and his mother or any other matters which could lead to their identification.
c. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “NAA” and his mother as “NAD” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant or his mother shall be redacted. The Defendants shall be referred to as “An Independent Review Panel”, “A School”, and “A Local Authority”, respectively.
d. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C:
i. a non-party may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 1(a)-(c) of this Order.
ii. if a non-party applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;
iii. any interested party, whether or not a party to proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke the anonymity provisions in paragraph 1 of this Order. Any such application must be on 3 days written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
e. The orders made at paragraphs 1(a)-(d) above are subject to review at any hearing of this claim.
- The claim is stayed pending the outcome of the Single Competent Authority’s reconsideration of their conclusive grounds decision in respect of the Claimant.
- Within 14 days of receipt of the decision (or outcome of reconsideration process) referred to at paragraph 2 above, the Claimant shall file and serve a note outlining the legal issues which remain live.
- Costs in the case.
- This claim is about the exclusion of the Claimant from a school. It is said that the Defendants have failed to address relevant evidence of modern slavery.
- There is before the Court a draft consent order, signed by both parties, for the stay of this claim.
- I am content to grant the stay. It is thought that the SCA’s decision could have a significant bearing on the issues which the Court has to determine in the claim.
- The consent order did not specifically deal with anonymity, which had been applied for within the claim documents. I have therefore considered the matter. In my judgment, bearing in mind the open justice principle, anonymity is justified in this case. The Claimant is a child with significant vulnerabilities.