PM -v- London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-001859

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

Judge Plimmer
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
PM
(anonymity direction made)

-v-

London Borough of Hillingdon

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 Judge Plimmer sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. The identity of the Claimant as a party to these proceedings is confidential and shall not be published. This is because she is a minor, aged 15 years old.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the claimant or of any details that could lead to the identification of the claimant as a party to these proceedings. In any judgment or report of these proceedings or any other publication in relation thereto, the claimant shall be referred to as ‘PM’ and any details that might lead to the identification of the claimant shall be redacted before publication.

Reasons

  1. In a decision dated 7 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) allowed the Claimant’s appeal. This included naming a residential special school in her EHC plan. In a decision dated 23 July 2024 the Upper Tribunal (UT’) granted the Defendant permission to appeal against the FTT decision and suspended the decision pending the outcome of the appeal. The UT appeal was heard on 15 October 2024 and the decision was reserved.
  2. The Claimant filed her claim for judicial review on 3 June 2024 and before the UT decision suspending the FTT decision. However, the relief sought by the Claimant has been superseded by the UT decision and in all the circumstances the grounds are not arguable.
  3. I do not consider it appropriate to transfer the application to the UT. If the UT statutory appeal is successful then it is likely the matter will be remitted to the FTT. If it is unsuccessful, then there is no reason to believe the Defendant will not comply with the FTT decision.

Signed: Judge Melanie Plimmer
Date: 17 December 2024