Claim number: CO/1299/2023
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
11 April 2023
The Honourable Mr Justice Johnson
The King on the application of
The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Johnson
This is an order for an injunction. Breach of paragraph 1 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 1 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.
- The defendant must by 12 noon on 20 April 2023, pursuant to section 188(1) Housing Act 1996, secure suitable interim accommodation and make it available for the Claimant and his household.
- The defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order in paragraph 1 above. In the event that such an application is made by 4pm on 14 April then it shall, if practicable, be put before a judge or deputy judge for consideration on the papers on 17 or 18 April 2023.
- Until further order:
(1) the claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as NM. His family members shall be referred to as MM, SM, SX, OX, BX, MX and NX, and
(2) Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name of the claimant or his family members, or any details leading to the identification of either the claimant or his family members.
(3) 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 is referred to in those documents only as NM, and his family members are referred to only as MM, SM, SX, OX, BX, MX and NX; and (b) that any reference to the name of the claimant or his family members be deleted from those documents.
3. Costs reserved.
On the papers that have been submitted, and without seeing any representations from the defendant, I consider that the claimant has identified a sufficiently meritorious case to warrant the grant of a mandatory order (noting the defendant has already apparently accepted a duty under section 188(1)), and that the balance of convenience favours the making of such an
order. Given the nature of the order sought, I do not consider that the balance of convenience favours making an order that requires compliance within the timescale set by the claimant. I have provided a longer period, recognising that this comes after the start of the summer term.
I have made provision which would enable the defendant, if wishes to do so, to apply to set aside the order, with directions that would enable any such application to be determined before the time for compliance with the order.
I consider that non-disclosure of the names of the claimant and his family members is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant’s family, pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.