R on the application of JSH and RRB -v- Westmoreland and Furness Council (anonymity order)
Claim no: AC-2024-MAN-00345
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
2 October 2024
Before:
Robert Palmer KC
Between:
The King
on the application of
JSH and RRB
-v-
Westmoreland and Furniss Council
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ANONYMITY ORDER
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and directions
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by ROBERT PALMER KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court):
- Anonymity:
(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “JSH”, and his litigation friend as “RRB”.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or his parents or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. - Abridgement of time and expedition:
(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 10 October 2024.
(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 14 October 2024.
(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review or order a rolled up hearing immediately thereafter.
REASONS
Anonymity:
- Anonymity is required to protect the interests of the Claimant, who is a child. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
Abridgement of time and expedition:
2. There is a clear need for matters to be resolved expeditiously, given the current absence of educational provision and the reported increase in self-injurious behaviour by the Claimant. For that reason, it is appropriate to abridge time for the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and for any Reply by the Claimant.
3. The Claimant has applied on an urgent basis for directions leading to a rolled up hearing by the end of this month. This would entail the Defendant producing detailed grounds and full evidence in response to the claim within 10 days of issue of the claim. I am not prepared to order such a course at this stage. The Defendant needs a proper opportunity to explain its current position, given the challenging circumstances faced since the Claimant’s previous school gave notice in April 2024. Requiring the Defendant authority to produce a fully evidenced response within 10 days is unlikely to produce a just outcome in the best interests of the child, in particular in circumstances where the matter has been pursued to date through pre-action correspondence since 26 July 2024. While I do not criticise the Claimant’s representatives for seeking to resolve the matter without recourse to litigation, given the extended time taken before a claim has been filed it is inappropriate to apply for an urgent order for such a severely curtailed timetable without a proper opportunity for the Defendant to respond.
4. The appropriate course is for the application for permission and/or for a rolled up hearing to be considered by a judge or deputy judge with the benefit of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and any Reply by the Claimant.