NT -v- Newcastle City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order


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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Mr Justice Fordham

The King on the application of
Newcastle City Council

On an application by Form N244
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Fordham

  1. The application to abridge time for D’s AOS is refused.
  2. The application to impose 7 days for post-AOS consideration of the papers is refused.
  3. The application for anonymity is granted, with liberty to any person to apply to vary or discharge anonymity on notice to the parties.
  4. Pending further Order, pursuant to CPR 39.2 the Claimant is granted anonymity and shall be known as “NT” and there shall be no publication of the Claimant’s name or any information that might lead to his being identified.
    (1) I cannot understand why the Claimant’s representatives should seek to interpose a Judge, to look at an application at some stage after 7 days from the issue of the claim (Bundle pp.11, 41), to then determine whether to give 7 days from a Court Order for the AOS. The AOS is due in any event 21 days within service of the claim. If C’s team served the claim on the date filed (I have seen no Certificate of Service) then 21 days will be 14.10.22. These papers have – unsurprisingly – come to me (10.10.22) just before that deadline. This is absurd. 7 days from today would be 17.10.22.
    (2) Nor was an urgent application justified for the purposes of interposing a Judge to direct a time frame for post-AOS consideration. I decline to do so.
    (3) I am granting anonymity, protectively, only because this is the Court’s first Order and if the Claimant is named this Order can be obtained from the court files. I should not have been put in this position.
    Anonymity should be being considered by the paper permission judge in the usual way, informed by any response from D. In the unfortunate circumstances, I am satisfied that a protective, provisional order is necessary, albeit as a holding position, given the issue in the case and the Claimant’s claim to be a minor.