R on the application of JM -v- Birmingham City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim no: AC-2024-BHM-000250

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

17 October 2024

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

His Honour Judge Worster

Between:

The King
on the application of JM (a minor) by his litigation friend Geraldine Rose McGrory

-v-

Birmingham City Council

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ANONYMITY ORDER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by His Honour Judge Worster sitting as a Judge of the High Court at Birmingham on 17 October 2024

(i) The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.

(ii) The claimant is permitted to issue these proceedings naming the claimant as JM (a cipher applied by the court).

(iii) There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher

  1. The application for interim relief will be considered by the Judge on the papers at the same time as the consideration of the application for permission to apply for Judicial Review
  2. The Defendant is to file and serve its Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence together with any evidence it relies upon in response to the application for an interim injunction by 4pm on 31 October 2024.
  3. If the Claimant intends to reply to the Defendant’s case on the interim application, that evidence is to be filed and served by 4pm on 7 November 2024.
  4. The claim is then to be referred to a Judge for consideration on an expedited basis.

Reasons

  1. The orders sought by this claim are set out in the extension to section 8 of the Claim Form at bundle page 44-45. The principal relief involves (at ii) the grant of a mandatory order that the Defendant secure all special educational provision as stated within Section F of the Claimant’s EHC Plan forthwith and in any event by a certain date. The interim order sought is formulated at iv). In summary it is to prevent the defendant from enforcing an Annual Review process which would negate or dilute the plan.
  2. The decision challenged is of 16 September 2024 (bundle 48). In that letter, the Defendant acknowledges its duty to amend the EHCP in accordance with the decision of the First Tier Tribunal’s decision of 5 June 2024. The dispute appears to centre around the scope of what is to be amended, and how that is to be done.
  3. The interim order sought is in broad and diffuse terms, and (on the face of it) closely connected with the principal mandatory relief sought. The Claimant is likely to need to establish a strong prima facie case.
  4. This claim involves the education of a child, and there is a need for some expedition. However, the Court will rarely grant any form of interim relief without establishing what the other party to the claim says in respect of the application; see paragraph 16.5.1 of the Administrative Court Guide. That is particularly so when mandatory relief is sought.
  5. The directions given seek to balance the need for some expedition with the need to ensure that the parties have a proper opportunity to put their case.
  6. The claimant is a minor with special educational needs. Anonymity orders are required.