NMXF -v- London Borough of Barnet Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002300
(formerly CO/2793/2023)

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

15 September 2023

Before:

Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President of the Upper Tribunal, sitting as a judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
NMXF (by his mother and litigation friend)

-v-

London Borough of Barnet Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant (including the ‘reply’) and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President of the Upper Tribunal, sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to Rule 39.2 the Claimant is granted anonymity and is to be referred to as ‘NMXF’.
  2. The claimant’s mother is appointed as the claimant’s litigation friend.
  3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. No order as to costs.

Reasons

  1. The grounds are not properly arguable. The duty is to provide suitable travel arrangements as assessed by the Council as suitable and reasonable in the circumstances. There is no arguable public law defect in the Council’s conduct or decision-making.
  2. If the grounds had been arguable, I should nevertheless have refused permission for the following separate reasons. (i) The claimant has an alternative remedy under the Education Act 1996 and should seek that rather than judicial review. (ii) There is no useful remedy that the Court could grant, as the defendant is aware of its obligations and (on the evidence) is trying to fulfil them. The Order sought would achieve nothing and the Court would not make an Order either setting a timetable for the daily transport or requiring it to give the claimant’s family the right to require arrangements to be made taking into account their preferences alone.
  3. I make no order as to costs as I consider the amount claimed wholly excessive and there is no basis on which I could award any other amount. The claim itself is simple and the defendant’s response is, properly, simple. The process of negotiating with the claimant’s family is an element of the defendant’s Education Act duty, not an element of the need to respond to this claim.