NN -v- Croydon Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-000168

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

24 August 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sweeting

Between:

The King on the application of
NN, by her mother and Litigation Friend FF

-v-

Croydon Council

Order

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 Sweeting

  1. The Defendant is restrained from concluding the consultation process relating to the Claimant’s EHC Plan which it started on 1st August 2023, and shall refrain from taking any further steps in relation to the same, pending the determination of these proceedings or further order.
  2. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order in paragraph 1 above on 2 days written notice to the Claimant.
  3. Any application made under paragraph 2 is to be referred to a High Court Judge for consideration immediately after issue.
  4. The matter is certified as suitable for expedition.
  5. The Defendant is to file and serve an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of resistance within 14 days after service of the claim form.
  6. The application for permission and further directions will be urgently referred to a judge following the filing of the Defendant’s acknowledgment of service.
  7. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant, the Litigation Friend, or any details leading to their identification. They shall be referred to as ‘NN’ and ‘FF’ respectively.
  8. 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 and their litigation friend are referred to in those documents only by the letters “NN” and “FF” respectively; and (b) any reference to their names have been deleted from those documents.
  9. Costs reserved.

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.

Reasons

  1. I am satisfied that this matter should be dealt with urgently given the delay to date in finalising the EHCP plan and the claimant’s profound disabilities which give rise to a need for a high level of care which on the claimant’s case is yet to be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the First Tier Tribunal.
  2. I am satisfied that the recent consultation process and proposed EHC plan may arguably amount to an attempt to avoid implementation of the First Tier Tribunal decision and the defendant’s obligations under the 2017 regulations; that there is a serious issue to be tried in relation to this and that the balance of convenience favours injunctive relief which will preserve the status quo pending the resolution of the application for permission to apply for judicial review and any subsequent proceedings if permission is granted.