PB -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002007

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

31 August 2023

Before:

Hugh Mercer KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

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

-v-

London Borough of Camden

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 and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by Hugh Mercer KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court.

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused as being totally without merit.
  2. The application for anonymity is granted, with liberty to any person to apply to vary or discharge anonymity on notice to the parties.
  3. Pending further Order, pursuant to CPR 39.2 the Claimant is granted anonymity and shall be known as “PB” and there shall be no publication of his name or any information that might lead to him being identified.
  4. No order for costs.

Reasons

  1. On 2 February 2023, the Upper Tribunal made the following Order: “The effect of the FTT’s decision is suspended [pending] the Upper Tribunal’s decision on this appeal”. Paragraph 30(j) of Claimant’s appeal submissions of 1 March 2023 to the Upper Tribunal reads as though Claimant accepts that current position is that EHCP is suspended. In any event, the judgment of the Upper Tribunal in Essex CC v TA & another [2019] UKUT 38 (ACC) at paragraph 35 concludes that a stay of the relevant UT order was to avoid having to comply with an EHCP which the Respondent regarded as inappropriate. The proposition in Ground 1 that the plan remains in force notwithstanding the UT’s order to suspend appears to me to be bound to fail.
  2. With regard to the alleged breach of s. 19 Education Act 1996, the Defendant has commissioned three separate providers to make EOTAS provision but each of them concluded that they could not work with the Claimant’s mother. Para. 5 SGR also records further efforts to make provision for the Claimant. In those circumstances, the judgment of Lord Phillips MR in R(G) v. Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45 at [46] requires me to take account of the whole picture and on this basis, the alleged breach of s. 19 is also bound to fail.
  3. Acting protectively in respect of a minor, I am satisfied that there is a CPR 39.2(4) necessity.

CPR 54.7A(8) APPLIES. THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS FINAL; RULE 54.12(3) (REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AT A HEARING) DOES NOT APPLY.